Talk:Sparta/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Overpowered Persia"

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!--Yannismarou 16:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we've been distracted ("disrupted"?) by one user and we discuss bullshit. I agree with Yanni's initial comment about the focus for the lead. NikoSilver 16:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And something else: I also mentioned all these sources stating that Sparta was a superpower (focusing on Cartledge), but most of them accompany the term with an adjective "Greek superpower" or a "superpower in Greece". (or "the ancient Greek equivalent of a superpower": they speak about the Greek region) I think it is important to clarify that.--Yannismarou 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to add a limiting descriptor to either Ancient Greek World or whatever. NikoSilver 16:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to change "overpower" to "defeated at war", a much clearer wording. Miskin 16:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You regard "defeated at war" it as more accurate than "effectively confronting the Persian empire in various occasions" that I proposed? And I ask that before the Persians and the Spartans confronted each other again during Agesilaus' reign.--Yannismarou 16:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice, now that we've resolved this, can we please unprotect the article to insert the following lead:

---

Sparta (Doric: Σπάρτα Spárta, Attic: Σπάρτη 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, 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. Laconia or Lacedaemon (Λακεδαίμων) 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.

---

Then we can all move on to the rest of our lives. NikoSilver 16:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yannimarou, you write about me "you think that you possess the absolute truth and everybody else here is wrong." This is another personal attack. Besides let's list "everybody else" who disagrees with me about the word superpower:

Dejvid "amount of historians that would be happy with superpower must be tiny and even the one ref you giv I suspect of intentionally exagerating to emphasize a point."

Geda "regarding Athens and/or Sparta as a "superpower" is rather overimaginative and naive" and "very, very silly"

Mehrshad "anyone with at least high school diploma will look at this article and laugh both at Wikipedia and the article"

Mardvich "If we're going to call Sparta a "super-power" because Sparta won a defensive war against the Persian Empire, then we might as well start calling Vietnam a "super-power" because Vietnam won a defensive war against the United States of America."

NN 16:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NN, can you please please please please please please (I do not know how more politely I can ask that!!!) let us close this particular issue about Persia, and make your comments after this is over. Please!--Yannismarou 16:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nayan's last edit explains precisely why I will not compromise with him. I feel I'm doing harm to wikipedia by enforcing disruptive editing. Miskin 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggested to change "overpower" to "defeated at war" or just "defeated". This is accurate since the Britannica 2006 article on Sparta explicitely mentions that the victory in the second Persian war was nominally credited by the Greeks to Sparta. I've already added the descriptive 'military', what wrong implications may this have? It only focuses on the known fact that Sparta had the best military, undefeated on land for over 5 centuries. Where's the imprecision in that? Miskin 16:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Superpower and Overpower

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)

Can someone block this person for persistent disruption please? NikoSilver 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicos' great proposal

Nice, now that we've resolved this, can we please unprotect the article to insert the following lead:

---

Sparta (Doric: Σπάρτα Spárta, Attic: Σπάρτη 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, 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. Laconia or Lacedaemon (Λακεδαίμων) 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.

---

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)

Do we have an agreement here to put this lead, and lift the protection?--Yannismarou 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yanni wrote "this particular issue about Persia" by which I suppose you mean the use of alternative words "overpower", "defeat", "defensive" etc. Sure, go ahead and finish that discussion. I want to make it clear that the major issue is about the use of the word "superpower" and the lack of balance in the introduction. NN 17:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we do not have agreement on the use of the word superpower in the introduction. Besides me, other editors including Dejvid, Geda, Garnet, Mershad and Mardvich have said it is inappropriate to use this word. NN 17:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides Niko's version lacks balance because it doesn't mention Sparta's defeats by Athens. NN 17:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes, they defeated the Persian army in Lydia and Caria under Agesilaus'leadership.--Yannismarou 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A. Garnet this is from the article - all well referenced material:

During the Corinthian War Sparta faced a coalition of the leading Greek states: Thebes, Athens, Corinth, and Argos. The alliance was initially backed by Persia, whose lands in Anatolia had been invaded by Sparta and which feared further Spartan expansion into Asia.[7] Sparta achieved a series of land victories but many of her ships were destroyed at Cnidus by a Greek-Phoenician mercenary fleet that Persia had provided to Athens. The event severely damaged Sparta's naval power but did not end its aspirations of invading further into Persia, until Conon the Athenian ravaged the Spartan coastline and provoked the old Spartan fear of a helot revolt.[8] After a few more years of fighting, the "King's peace" was established, according to which all Greek states would remain independent, and Persia's Asian border would be free of the Spartan threat.[8] Sparta entered its long-term decline after a severe military defeat to Epaminondas of Thebes at the Battle of Leuctra. This was the first attested time that a Spartan army would lose a land battle at full strength.

Miskin 17:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Who disagrees with calling Sparta superpower in the Introduction

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)

1. Paul Cartledge
2. DJ Farmer
3. S Shirley, JS Romm
4. ML Cook
5. Samuel Shirley, James S. Romm
6. S Hornblower
7. JD Fuhrman, NB Webber, LW Davis, DH Gamble …
8. Nic Fields, Donato Spedaliere
9. M. a. Muqtedar Khan

...and some 400 others agree. NikoSilver 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no NN! You will not disrupt as you wish the discussion here! The proposal that will be implemented is "of a military superpower of the Ancient Greek world", not just "superpower" as you implied. If you want to comment on that, do it. The last thing I want to do is to block you as Nicos proposed, but if you keep acting like that you'll oblige me to do it.--Yannismarou 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok enough is enough. I'm sorry Yannismarou, I've tried for several days but today I've had it. I can't co-operate with such a disruptive "editor" who cannot respect or understand the simplest of wp rules. I don't care what people's POV is, I won't stand to see referenced material getting removed for POV. If Nayan has a problem with the current wording then he either cites a "clear" counter-source or the subject goes to ArbCom. I don't want to discuss with this individual anymore, unless the conversation becomes official. Miskin 17:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I too am officially dropping this discussion. NikoSilver 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Garnet's Proposal for Compromise

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)

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)

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)

Closing this discussion

Garnet edited:

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)

After my unfortunate decision of blocking NN for 1 hour, let's discuss here all of us without dropping away, arguing that because of NN there can be no compromise. This is what Garnet proposes. I ask: Garnet, since so many scholars use the term "superpower of ancient Greece" for both Athens and Sparta (I think I have seen it in Kagan as well, but I am not sure), can't you leave with this term of the lead. You regard the removal of "of a military superpower of the Ancient Greek world" a sine qua non?--Yannismarou 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the expression "military superpower" is better that "military preheminent power" or "military hegemonic power".--Yannismarou 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yannis, if there are scholars who use superpower, then there are more who use some of my own suggestions.

• +spartan +hegemony = 1,430 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%2Bspartan+%2Bhegemony&spell=1
• +sparta +hegemony = 1,780 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%2Bsparta+%2Bhegemony&btnG=Search
• +sparta +preeminent = 428 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%2Bsparta+%2Bpreeminent&spell=1

I really do not understand why we are getting obsessed with applying a 20th century term to a classical city-state when as I have shown there are much less controversial and verifiable ways of doing it. --A.Garnet 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that hegemony and superpower are not mutually exclusive (on the contrary that is). NikoSilver 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To add, hegemony is a state to which all superpowers fall. The question is: Is there any other sourced adjective than "superpower" to describe Sparta? My opinion is no. NikoSilver 17:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. A hegemony of Greece can't be but a superpower of Greece! And I do not see why using both terms, or the one here and the other there is a problem! These are not important issues, guys, since we clarify the scope ("of the ancient Greek world"), the range of power ("military superpower") and the events ("it overpowered Athens and confronted Persia"). Let's not play with words; in a few moments we'll start quarelling about punctuation in the way this discussion goes!--Yannismarou 17:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Niko, superpower was coined for the twentieth century, suggesting unrivalled political, military and economic power on a global scale. It just does not "fit" to use this when talking about Classical Greece. Come on now, just ask yourself what is wrong with saying Sparta was a pre-emninent power in ancient Greece? Also, one can be a hegemonic power without being a superpower, since as i said, superpower is an exceptional kind of power which existed only in the twentieth century. --A.Garnet 18:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Garnet, it is coined in our century, but it has been repeatedly used by eminent and distinguished classicists to describe the struggle of power between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece. If they can use it, then why can't Wikipedia? I honestly fail to understand that!--Yannismarou 18:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Most English words were coined much later than the events at hand. This is irrelevant, since the application of the word specifically for Sparta and specifically for that era and region ("known world") is sourced to exhaustion. NikoSilver 18:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

But I have shown you scholars who refer to Sparta as a hegemon and not a superpower. I have seen nothing to suggest your view has more weight or credibility than mine, on the contrary my google scholar search has shown hegemon to be far more widely used. So I say why not simply use pre-eminent power and let's be done with this? --A.Garnet 18:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't both terms be used (i.e. "military superpower and/or hegemony over...")?--Domitius 18:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Alf, your search is for "+Spartan +hegemony". If you search for "+Sparta +hegemon", you'll get less results. Again, please see above adjective vs state. NikoSilver 18:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) That is, Domitius, what I say here. But not at the same place I think. Anyway, I honestly regard this issue as a trivia. Garnet has shown scholars who use the term "hegemon", and I and Nicos authors that use the term "superpower". I don't see why one position is stronger than the other. Since Miskin who is a main editor of this article prefers the word "superpower", and since its use in the proposed framework is properly justified and sourced, I don't see any problem is using it, and in using "hegemony" alternatively somewhere else. Even in the next line! Put it there to end that and be everybody happy, because all terms are used!--Yannismarou 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

+sparta +hegemonic = 650, still more than superpower. Look, what are we trying to convey? That Sparta was the foremost power of Ancient Greece right? OK, so how does pre-eminent power not fit in with this? --A.Garnet 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yannis, with all due respect, we have not put all this effort in making our point for you to decide on the basis of what somebody else prefers. As you have said, no position is stronger than the other, therefore let us use a word which falls perfeclty in line with the point of the sentence: To highlight Sparta's pre-eminence in Ancient Greece. --A.Garnet 18:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Hadn't checked hegemonic! Anyway, I don't have an issue with "hegemon"/"hegemonic"/"hegemony" since they are sourced too. Why are there people who have issue with the equally sourced "superpower" beats me. You have to admit that this started due to the persistence of one user for no reason. Normally neither of us would have the need to comment or debate this. NikoSilver 18:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

When all is said and done, the tendentious term "superpower" is only used twice in the entire article:

1. "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower...."
2. "In later Classical times, Sparta along with Athens, Thebes and Persia had been the main superpowers...."

As it's a rather silly term to use (don't shoot me!) I don't see why its replacement with something like "main power", or whatever, is so horrific. Or we could try replacing it with a spoonerism - "pupersower". Just as ridiculous, but funnier. No? Oh well, then! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

At a first place, I edited the version Nicos proposed as an improved one. If you agree on what Garnet says, then I'll implement it and I'll remove protection. I'm reluctant to do that now, because I'm afraid final consensus is not here, edit-warring may restart, and, most importantly, I want first to contact Khoikhoi who initially protected the page.--Yannismarou 18:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My 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".

No superpower, no hegemonic power, just pre-eminent military power - which it was. --A.Garnet 18:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in inclusion of any sourced word. I disagree with the forced exclusion of any sourced word. NikoSilver 18:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that since "superpower" is properly cited, defined and used in the proper context (as it is here) there is no reason not to be used.--Yannismarou 18:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Argh! Both are sourced, both can be used in proper context, its just that one does not apply twentieth century terminology! We agree both superpower and hegemonic power imply the same thing: Sparta was the pre-eminent power of ancient Greece, so let us use that and be done with it. Have to go now, do not take my absence as meaning i agree to the usage of superpower. Sigh. --A.Garnet 18:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NikoSilver. Since both are sourced then it means that you have the right to use any of them, but you don't have the right to judge one better over the other like you are trying to do A. Garnet (unless of course you can cite a source which does so). Contrary to what you said, 'superpower' _does_ have wide use for antiquity, and your ellaboration falls at the moment under original research. Miskin 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:ATT:

The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

A. Garnet are you able to do this or not? If you can't then none of your arguments can be taken into consideration. Miskin 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I provided some sources above referring to Spartan hegemony. I provided a google scholar count showing hegemonic or hegemon to be more widely used than superpower. --A.Garnet 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems there is already an article entitled Spartan hegemony!--A.Garnet 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?? How does the use of 'hegemony' supplant the use of 'superpower'? Why won't it supplant the use of 'Empire' or 'Leadership' or any other term for that matter? What kind of POV is this now? Of course hegemony will have more results, the four hegemonies of Greece (Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Macedon) is a standard Greek history topic, there's nothing new about that. Did you really think we were in need of someone to prove the use of the term 'hegemony'?? There's even a wikipedia article on Spartan hegemony alone, and it is already linked. What you have yet failed to answer is with what logic does the term "hegemony" take precedence over "superpower"? The terms are not even synonymous. I can prove that USA and USSR were 'hegemonic' too, that doesn't mean that I'll stop calling them other things such as 'superpowers'. You just suggested a different mainstream term, already used in the article, but your theory on how it actually replaces "superpower" remains a personal opinion. I didn't see any source claiming that "hegemony" is more suitable than "superpower". Again, that's only your POV. Miskin 22:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To make this point even clearer, a source of the Oxford University Press found in a gbook, mentions: "They developed and persisted as the propagandists' authorization for the hegemony of a current superpower, or of Athens and Sparta"[A Commentary on Plutarch's Life of Agesilaos]. The term 'superpower' is clearly used for ancient states, and now it is also demonstrated that it is in fact a complementary of the term hegemony. The citation speaks of the hegemony of a current superpower. Respond only with counter-sources. Miskin 23:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of Editor and Concluding the Discussion

Yannismarou and I disagreed upon use of the word superpower in the introduction of Sparta. Some other editors thought it was proper to use the word, other editors (like me) disagreed.

Using his admistrator privileges Yannismarou "concluded the discussion" by blocking me and changing the article. The reason he gave for the blocking was WP:POINT.

Reading the article WP:POINT I listed the reasons given there for a block:

1) "should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work in Wikipedia itself" 2) the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. 3) reverting an edit exactly three times a day, and then "innocently" maintaining that no rules are being violated 4) don't create seven sock puppets and have them all agree with you. 5) don't create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it listed on AfD. 6) don't list hundreds of non-deletable articles on AfD in one day in order to try to save it. 7) don't frivolously nominate the same article for featured article status. 8) don't delete all the information about every person from the article, calling it unimportant. 9) don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion 10) don't reverse an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process" 11) don't falsify an implausible award to yourself to highlight how silly you think it is 12) don't attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it 13) Don't rush to head off new ideas for vandalism

None of the above 13 points apply to the discussion by me. Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to operate?

NN 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye Garnet! Don't worry! Your stance is clear. I also have to leave now. I hope that until tomorrow a miracle will take place, and consensus will be here! Once again I have to say that I regret I blocked NN, but at this point I really had no alternative. CU all tomorrow!--Yannismarou 18:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you admitting you were wrong to block me when you say you "regret", or are you regretting my actions on my behalf? NN 18:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I just say it was an unpleasant decision. And I also regret the fact that we did not manage to reach a consensus here. I reverted back to the protected version by Khoikhoi, and let's see if tomorrow is going to be a better day.--Yannismarou 18:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So your policy is that if consensus cannot be reached, to use your Admin privileges, block the other party, unprotect the page, put in the text you decide you like. NN 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on NN, you know you were trolling. Misrepresenting people's comments, posting irrelevant answers to the issues in dispute at the time... and the list goes on...--Domitius 19:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you can make a list of allegations which have no basis in fact. The discussion by me is right here on this page for everybody to view. NN 19:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you were trolling big time, your posts are public material, anyone can view them and will certainly agree.--Domitius 19:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NN's block was not justified. Or, if it was, there are a lot more editors that should have been similarly blocked, for the same supposed reasons. What a sorry state of affairs this has all turned out to be. Gosh! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 00:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the situation is sad and doesn't reflect well on Wiki, but there are a lot of good people here. One should fight the good fight for their sake. I have posted to AN/I, you can take a look. [1]NN 00:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the term superpower must me modified in this article immediately. it should either read that Sparta was a superpower in greece or just take out superpower completely. spartans could not influence events and project power on a worldwide scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It appears that Nayan has been officially recruiting POV warriors[2]. This "immortals" person has been vandalising and pov-pushing for several weeks in Thermopylae and other Persian-related articles. Nice going Nev. You just demostrated to gardener why you were blocked for one hour. This, along other past activities of yours, are taken seriously in wikipedia. Soon you'll find yourself with a much longer block. Miskin 03:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So it is now wrong to ask other editors to give their opinion on an issue? I understand you do not like the edits by the users I have asked, but exactly what Wiki policy has been violated? NN 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin wrote "You just demostrated to gardener why you were blocked for one hour." If Geda believes that he is quite capable of saying so himself. I doubt you can read his mind. (My apologies for using male pronouns for editors here, please correct me if I am wrong). NN 04:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This matter has been resolved with an apology by Yannismarou. [3] - NN

Good. It's about time.

Miskin said : "You just demostrated to gardener why you were blocked for one hour". I say to Miskin - don't speak for me, please. Your recent input to this talk page has been deplorable. No offence.

PS - Whilst attempting to post this a few minutes earlier, it edit-conflicted with the last post by user Iblardi. On attempting to post it later, he seems to have inadvertently deleted the post of NN's I was replying to, causing a delay. I've re-inserted it. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 18:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the inadvertent deletion and your reinsertion, thanks again! NN 18:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Iblardi 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

An Official Protest

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please refrain from getting personal. Iblardi 17:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Iblardi/Greier, is there are reason why you are getting so personal (rhetorical question)?--Domitius 15:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Whatever it is, it's not troll-stalking Miskin unlike certain other users.--Domitius 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Then again, you do speak English after all. What were you doing there? Iblardi 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A highly sourced questionable practice you mean.--Domitius 14:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What's your involvement Greier? Nevermind, say it to me over there. Miskin 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

She vs. It

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)

Both are used but I prefere "it" as well. Miskin 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAA

Removal of Referenced Material from the Article

Miskin' has been making repeated allegations at various different pages (user pages etc.) that I removed referenced material. Early on I did remove the section about Sparta's history on the basis that there was already an article "History of Sparta"

Over the last three days BEFORE the article was protected (that is from March 7 to 10), I did not remove referenced material, I repositioned it within the article. For example this edit [4]. It can be verified that the referenced material was moved from the introduction to within the article, and not removed.

I even asked if there was a Wiki policy saying material could not be repositioned within the article [5] but received no reply.

Ironically it was those disagreeing with me and accusing me of removing referenced materials are the ones who actually removed (not repositioned but removed) referenced material that I had provided:

NikoSilver [6] (removal of material by Behreandt and Burkchardt);

Domitius [7] (removal of material by The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition)

Miskin [8] (removal of material by The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition).

Miskin making allegations is easy, proving them with diffs is hard when the truth is not on your side. NN 00:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all we need to draw a straight line between "removal due to content-dispute" and a simple "reversion". If you remove my referenced material and replace them with reference material of irrelevant yet correct context, then I have two choices at hand: I'll either restore my edits and move yours elsewhere, or revert your edits altogether, it is clearly up to me. It is you who has removed the referenced material at the given moment. If you add referenced material within context without removing any other referenced material, and I revert you, then you'll be able to accuse me for removing your edits. This however, never happened, and I think you are already familiar with it. All the reverts you mentioned above fall under the first category, where you actually replaced referenced content with other irrelevant referenced content, in order to be able to claim what you now claim. As for the removal attributed to myself [[9]], besides the fact that it was part of a revert, it involved repeating the same information within 5 lines. Personally I don't think you seriously can't tell the difference between what I just explained. You never added referenced material without removing what you had wanted to remove since the beginning. So please stop trying to demonise us and present it as if we simply never let you make edits because you know that this is not the case. I'll gather some this to demostrate this point. Concerning this edit of yours [10], you moved a ref tag from its original position to a random one. This is the type of disruptive editing that I've been talking about. Moving around ref tags, manipulating edits and make false allegations, all part of a POV-push. It might have worked in AnI with the people who were not present here, but it cannot work with people who have been with you since the beginning. I'll make a list of the diffs where you remove sourced information. And although you will still find an excuse for every single one of them, at least they will be in public view for people to see and judge on their own. Miskin 01:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw you made some serious statements against me this time, accusing me indirectly for spreading fallacies against you. Before I gather the diffs that will prove a point, I want this conversation to be mediated, I won't make the same mistake as before. Miskin 01:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Will you apologise to me for what you just said if I prove you wrong, i.e. if I actually come up with the diffs? If the truth is on your side you have nothing to fear of. Miskin 01:20, 12 March 2007 (UT::C)

Your long posts and sentences are difficult for me to understand. If you use paragraphs it may make it easier. I think you are making a distinction between "an edit adding material" and "an edit adding material and also repositioning existing material". If that is what you are doing then you should make it explicit when you post to different pages. If you simply post saying "NN removed referenced material" when what I did was reposition, that prima facie is not true. What would you like mediation about? Specifically what are you going to prove that I said was wrong? NN 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question explicitly: Yes, if you can prove using diffs that I made false allegations about you then I will apologize. NN 01:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote from above:

Miskin' has been making repeated allegations at various different pages (user pages etc.) that I removed referenced material. Early on I did remove the section about Sparta's history on the basis that there was already an article "History of Sparta"

I want to make a point concerning your bold statements. I want a mediator to check all the diffs I'm going to provide and he should decide whether your excuse is convincing. It will then be demostrated under what rational or rather irrational basis I've been trying to cooperate for some time now. You also said: "Miskin making allegations is easy, proving them with diffs is hard when the truth is not on your side."
Let's find out how hard it is. I'll be absent for awhile or maybe less present. If you insist on judging what has already happened, then please seek a mediator. I'm willing to freeze the content-dispute process in order to allocate responsibilities concerning all actions taken up to this point. I won't make the same mistake as before. Miskin 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I once again fail to understand your meaning. You write "whether your excuse is convincing". What am I trying to be excused for? For alleging that you posted saying I had removed referenced material? Or for saying that there was an article "History of Sparta"? Please explain.

Also, I will be traveling for seven weeks starting Tuesday. NN 01:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For removing a huge chunk of referenced text for no given reason, or for extremely unconvincing reasons provided a posteriori. And for in consequence accusing me for false allegations. Miskin 02:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you and your friends have been entirely too defensive. I am actually a huge admirer of the ancient Greeks. I am not Iranian as you have said, but I am sure that even many Iranians recognize the achievements of the ancient Greeks. As I have mentioned earlier in this talk page, I do believe that ancient Greece was an intellectual superpower. It just was not a military superpower. To me it means much more to be a intellectual superpower than a military superpower. There have been many military powers in history, but only a few intellectual superpowers. That is why portrayal of Greece by a movie like 300 is so wrong. I understand you are proud of your heritage, and justifiably so. However you do not have to get defensive about a suggestion that Sparta was not a military World Power/Superpower. NN 02:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, so now this is all happening due to the paranoia caused by my alleged national background. It's not because you just realised that I couldn't find the diffs you requested in three seconds and make you owe me an apology. Nothing like that. Miskin 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

ENOUGH. Stop commenting on each other,and start working on the article. It's clear that this content dispute isn't being resolved here. I have suggested to both of you, that seeking outside opinions is the best way to move past this. So go to the MedCab, file an RfC, or seek out a third opinion. Whatever your next step is, it should NOT be a comment about or an accusation against each other or other editors. This isn't helping the article, the encyclopedia, or either of your cases in regards to the article. Start taking the steps in dispute resolution and stop bickering for the sake of bickering and avenging percieved wrongs. AniMate 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ani, sounds reasonable, thanks. I should not have got drawn in again. NN 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Should not have got drawn in?? You only started it (!!!) by indirectly calling me a liar, right in this very section. The section is right here, everyone can see it. So is your edit history and the large chunks of refereces text that you claim to have never removed [11] [12] [13].
You accused me for making false allegations and I just proved you wrong by citing 3 out of the numerous diffs disprove you. You made false accusations against me in order to escape your responsibilities. You owe me an apology for everything you said in the beginning of this section. Miskin 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up

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)

Comedy is also staying with the Greek theme dear Xeeron! It is a greek word too.-Γιάννης.

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)

This talk page is now 80 printed pages long. That's about the length of a short novella. Bravo! --Geniustwin 00:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.