Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 10 March 2007

Greece Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL

Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic for the true form of the Lacedæmonian government.
Wikinfo:Cretan/Spartan connection FYI. (Deleted by Wikipedians on March 6, 2006.)

Misc

The image of the Spartan hoplite is taken from the book Warfare in the Classical World, by John Gibson Warry. I therefore think that the Creative Commons license is invalid, and the image should be removed, since it is in fact from a copy written work. Am I correct? Chadfust 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a references tag to this page because for such a long and significant article, there is a glaring lack of citations. As of now it contains only one note and three references. I'm also uncertain how neutral it is. Adrigon 02:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inserting the article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica for what its worth. Someone who knows the history should review this.

For some reason, I cannot edit this article. (This seems to be the case with all very long articles. Perhaps Netscape, or at least Netscape 4.7, is incompatible with what happens to the edit window when the article exceeds a certain size.) Anyway, I wanted to insert a section at the end that several cities in the United States are named Sparta, including Sparta, Michigan, Sparta, New Jersey, Sparta, Tennessee, and Sparta, Wisconsin. If someone else can do that, please do so. -- BRG

Done. This article is long, I'll see about chopping it up later. --maveric149

History section moved to history of Sparta. --maveric149

This article features only ancient history. I wonder if modern history should go on the same page, or should the whole article be moved to a page called Ancient Sparta? Aggelophoros 02:02, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What? There is a current city in Greece at the same site called Sparta? If so then add info to this article about it. --mav 06:11, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done! Aggelophoros 08:14, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that the portions on the ancient Spartans should be moved to a page called History of Sparta. Take a look at the Athens article and see how they do it. jpbrenna

routtoves appears to be a scano of a Greek word. I suspect elattones, which means "lesser", but without a hardcopy of the 1511 I can't be sure. Can someone who has one look it up? -phma 01:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The section on "The Spartan cosmos" often switches back and forth between present and past tense. I'll change it all into past unless someone thinks there's a reason for this or it should all be in the present. Fpahl 13:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rename

I think that all the ancient history and stuff should be all be moved to its own article titled Lacedæmonia. That way things are seperate. Lacedæmonia was the ancient name and most people called it that way. How about a consensus for this? WHEELER 00:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Aggelophoros 05:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that most people actually think of Sparta as a city-state, and therefore are likely to look for that first. Obviously Lacedæmonia is more precise and might be preferred by students and academics, but I think we should bear in mind the general reader here. Also, the article makes these distinctions clear, so I don't think any confusion could result from the current arrangementLamename Cheesestring Rodriguez 18:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Athens did not rise after Sparta

I believe the article incorrectly states that Athens did not rise after Sparta. Athens was THE superpower, then Sparta's power increased. Finally the 2 powers met in the 27 year long Peloponnesian wars, of which Sparta was the victor. Following their success, Athens was subjugated by Sparta. Afew years later Athens regained their freedom, however it was mainly Thebes who ultimately brought down the Spartan leadership over Greece, under the command of Epaminondas. So I was about to correct this error, but figured I would verify with you other editors. 134.210.195.109 01:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When exactly was Athens the superpower prior to Sparta? Sparta headed the Hellenic League against the Persian because they were agreed to be the best warriors and the strongest state in Greece. They had far superior resources, ruling the fertile valleys of Laconia and Messenia, rather than the arid lands of Attica. Athens' rise, which I would place after the Persian War, was due to their naval power, which allowed them to subjugate varous islands and cities in the Delian League. Sparta's victory over Athens was largely due to the fact that they finally built a navy capable of challenging the Athenians. Rockgenie19

Clean-Up

Most of the historical stuff in this article needs to be eliminated and instead included in History of Sparta. Sooner the better. Alexander 007 06:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sparta and nazi germany article

i created this article when i was in year 12 for an assignment, it cannot be inside the encyclopedia as it is not biased nor make no conclusions, but it is a very good look at how each seem simila

User:Whatsup_will

--Whatsup will 02:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Spartan Facts

First, women (or so I heard) held 40% the land, whence the greater freedom & political power. 2d, (as far as I saw) the article said nothing to the reasons for Sparta's decline. I'd answer that but, having written a university paper on it (N to brag), it might fall into original research. (Unless I missed somebody else finding it, which wouldn't surprise me.) Any theories extant? (I'll pick the one I agreed with...?) Also, I've heard a Spartan M not KIA, or F who didn't die in childbirth, didn't get a name on a tombstone... Trekphiler 05:07, 19 December 2005 & 08:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any real point to the Halo sentance? All's it does is share a name, I don't think it should be on there.

Military Life

The only information it has regarding military life is that Spartans entered military service at 20 years of age. Don't you think it merits more information considering that Sparta is one of the most well-known military states in history? Soldiers were required to be extremely proficient with weapons ranging from daggers to spears to even their own shields. Mothers reminded their sons to "come back with your shield, or on it". I'm not very knowledgeable on the details, but I believe Trekphiler or some others might be able to enlighten us a little further on the details of a Spartan soldier's life. Derryl C 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't go into that much detail on their training. I do know they were segregated from women at an early age, lived in a kind of barracks, & (@first, anyhow) had to be landowners. That changed as more & more helots were used, & given citizenship for service, which contributed to Sparta's fall... Trekphiler 23:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

General considerations, especially Lycurgus

The author of this article seems to hold views about Spartan Historiography which are those of the 19th century, perhaps through his extensive - if not total - re-use of the Britannica entry. The prime mistake lies in his consideration - following the tradition of believing everything Plutarch and Xenophon wrote, who though are primary sources have been proven to be wrong, notably thanks to the excavation of the Arthemis Orthia site outside Sparta by the BSA c.1910 - of the Lycurgan constitution. The author seems to think that everything started there; this is wrong. As H-I Marrou (in 'Histoire de l'écucation dans l'Antiquité') points out, it is only because of the Second Messenian War that Lycurgan ideas were put into place. And secondly, before then, Cultural development in Sparta was equal - if not superior in some ways - to most other Greek cities including Athens (this is proven by the digs of the BSA: singing contests betweens choruses of young men and married men were, indeed held), also through the invention by Spartan lyric poets of the solo as a musical form. To carry on would imply re-writing the article from scratch which does not seem to be the whole point here. I do hope some good sould will help out too as it is an outrage that such an article should be massacred with lamentable scholarship. User: jmhd3, University of Cambridge

This article needs a clean-up

The article is confussing bewteen Spart and mordern sparta. I suggest we put modern sparta in it's article--Scott3 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Many factual errors in this article.

I have spotted numerous factual errors in this article. I'm not really up to re-writing some sections of this article but I can give you some various things to include in a re-write.

1.) It should be mentioned that at around the age of 18 young men would officially proclaim a male 'partner' of sorts in the army. The most obvious reason for doing this was the fact that this would increase the comradiery between soldiers, and if there are 2 soldiers fighting for eachother (for their love) on the battlefield, well thats a major morale booster..

2.) At the age of 7 the young men were sent to a barracks of sorts. It should also be understood that they will spend their ENTIRE time here up to the age of 30.

3.) At the age of 12 they were NOT just simply set out into the wilderness. They still remained in the barracks, but a few things were changed -

• Harsher treatment, less food
• They went to a 'graduation' ceremony of sorts to prove their ability to take large amounts of pain. This test was primarily a heavy amount of whipping. If they cried, they would fail the test, if not, they would procede.
• The 'older male lovers' would officially pair up with the boys.

4.) I really can't emphasize the fact enough that the Spartan society was in, for lack of a better word, /very/ gay oriented. For most men, they will spend their first 30 years of life in some sort of homosexual relationship. And men that did not do this, were viewed as outcasts. Homosexuality was not the 'thing' most monotheistic religions have made it today... But regardless of that, it should be known that the Spartan's society and daily life was centered around homosexuality. (I gave one brief explanation as to why this was a benefit in my first point.)

Note, I am by no means a primary source on this topic, but I can pull out numerous text books of mine, and cite many primary sources for this information. I just hope that someone will take this information into account and re-write a few sections. Many of the current information in this article is taken from sources that have been 'cleaned' up, if you know what I mean. (A common flaw in many history textbooks)Mchart 03:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why parts of it say that homosexuality was everywhere, and then later on it says that that is a common mistake, that homo/bisexuality was only common among women. Should it not be changed to be consistent with itself?

Quick notes.

• Sparta owend slaves
• Begining of millitery training at age 7
• Scornful of wealth
• Citizens for native borns

How come someone deleted most of the modern culture stuff?Centurion Ry 11:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I did. Video games and teenage computer sub-culture is out of the scope of this article. Miskin 11:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Spartan Shield

Is it just me, or is the spartan shield both irrelevant and corny as the picture where the seal of the city would be, anything would be better than that corny shield that has nothing to do with the city of sparta. I know Sparta is a small insignificant city nowadays but it deserves better than that!

I agree 194.80.178.1 02:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Spartan emblem was either a lion or the club of Hercules. If you can find any decent picture of either, then by all means do replace it. The lambda shield ('L' for Laconia) is a Spartan warrior's shield, so I don't understand what you mean when you say "it has nothing to do with Sparta". Miskin 02:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wording

"Supposedly, following the disaster that befell the Roman Imperial Army..." it was a defeat, not a disaster. call it a "disastrous defeat," if you will. the Visigoths stomping your army isn't in the same league as a hurricane or car accident, it is a conscious action. it is just bugging me.

shouldent some of us put halo as a pop culture reference

Foreign Policy

This section is overly short. Surely the writer should have mentioned the fact that Sparta fought a long war against Athens to maintain their position as prime power in Greece? And what about the fact that Sparta was probably the most introverted state ever? There was no trade with other cities, Spartans were not encouraged to travel, no foreigner could become a citizen. A major part of the Lycurgan reforms was that Sparta tried to protect itself from destabilising influences from the outside world in the most extreme way: no trade, and a society geared to producing the best army in Greece. Rockgenie19

Spartans / Spartiates

The political and military structure of classical Sparta was more complex than is reflected here. No where, for instance, is it mentioned that it was a military aristocracy with a quite small corps of Spartiates at its core, and it is actually only to these that the article as written applies. Any discussion of the ultimate downfall of Sparta needs to include the issue of the final disappearance of the Spartiate class, particularly subsequent to the disasters at Sphakteria and Leukra. 195.145.211.193 13:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

crap writing

Despite modern conceptions, homosexuality in Greece was only contained to a few select city-states. Unless you have read any work by Plato, who discribes the proper customs in seducing young boys. Yet one cannot deny that the 'moral lines' of sexuality were less defined in ancient times as they are now.

This is wiki filth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.168.167 (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Crap, shit, and fart filth.

"Spartans made these dumb laws because they were stupid. Sparta beat Athens because Sparta was more better." Ummm... could someone fix this? I'm at school, so I can't but just reading it is irritating. Why do people waste their time ruining things?--64.8.152.220 18:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Article -STILL- in need of major revision

See my older, previous post about this issue. While it is nice to see a section on spartan sexuality finally in here. It curiously is missing the major points I pointed out in my older post. If someone has the time, please make such revisions. You can e-mail me / PM if you would like sources to cite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mchart (talk • contribs) 05:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Deletions of material about wife sharing and pedagogic pederasty

It is not clear why this material, which is brief, historical and properly cited was removed. It is common practice in Misplaced Pages to briefly touch upon a relevant topic which is treated in depth elsewhere. I refer you to United States#Sports for an example. To talk about Sparta without mentioning in passing the customs for which they were famous (and which the remaining text salaciously hints at) is like discussing the US without mentioning football. Incomplete. Haiduc 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Adrigon 04:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this stuff needs to be mentioned in every article about ancient Greece? Most of what I removed was reworded from Spartan Pederasty except that it included some ridiculously POV remarks such as "Spartans thought that this would make them tougher" etc. I mean this is already treated in at least 5 articles already, but it appears that Haiduc wants to see it _everywhere_. Some days ago he even pasted a paragraph in the olive oil article, about how Spartans used it to "eroticize the body". The way I see it, the respective articles are linked at the bottom, therefore there's no need be so repetive about information which doesn't even fit into context most of the time. Miskin 11:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Miskin's argument is tantamount to asking why so many articles on US states mention the civil war. Why not, one can envision Miskin arguing, can't it be restricted to its own article? Pederasty was a central and essential cultural feature of Greece that colored many of its customs and institutions, education, erotics, sports, warfare, philosophy, carousing, religion, friendship, masculinity, drama, poetry, sculpture, and literature, just to name the more obvious. It also manifested differently in different poleis, of which Sparta and Crete were paramount examples, followed closely by Athens and Thebes. If one was going to expunge discussion of pederasty from articles on Greek topics, one can hardly think of a worse place to begin than the article on Sparta. On closer examination I see that many of the articles on ancient Greece discuss the topic of war. Should we also attempt to restrict discussion of that topic, since it too appears to be "mentioned in every article about ancient Greece"? Haiduc 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not naive enough to tell you that your claims are false, however I can't help but noticing that undue weight is constantly given. I can't accept for example that the civil war and the military of ancient Greece have the same utility value as do pederasty and homosexuality. Furthermore your sources are hand-picked and reflect only one side of this controversial topic. On top of this I couldn't help but noticing that a significant amount of POV is included in occasion, such as for instance the answer to "why did Spartans chose to be like this?" (allegedly because it would make them tougher). Such edits only try to present an editor's personal interpretation as something factual, which is altogether against the NPOV policy. For example it is nowhere mentioned that authors like Aristophanes (including others) would constantly make a mockery of such issues, or Alexander the Great's disgust in being offered young boys as sexual slaves, or even Plato's general criticism on homoxuality in his later works. Miskin 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You raise some good points but the solution is not to go around eliminating mentions of Greek pederasty from articles bearing on the culture. Nor is the coverage of Greek pederasty as one-sided as you seem to believe. I just did a quick check, and I see that Plato's views in his Laws are mentioned in the general Pederasty article, again mentioned in the Pederasty in ancient Greece and of course mentioned in the Philosophy of Greek pederasty (though now I notice that in this last a fuller discussion is warranted). Aristophanes is mentioned, in Pederasty in ancient Greece. Alexander the Great's ethical stance has been extensively discussed in Alexander the Great's personal relationships. And yes, nonsense does tend to filter in (as in the "made them tougher" example) but that's what we are here for. Haiduc 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true, I see that those points are mentioned, though in most cases they're being rationalised by the articles' general one-sided tones. Regarding Sparta, I think the subject becomes even more controversial. There are many controversial views coming by both secondary and primary sources, an example would be Xenophon's judgement on Lycurgus, who in his opinion, managed to successfully condemn the desire of a boys body within Spartan society. Similarly Aristotle does affirm that militarist and warlike societies are inspired by either heterosexual or homosexual relationships, but supports that Sparta belongs to the first category. I also think that Aristotle judges pederasty as a mental disease. In that respect I'm not sure whether the theory of mandatory Spartan pederasty meets a consensus. The arguments brought forth in the articles are that Sparta adopted its customs from Crete, which in turn had preserved the ancient Doric tradition. Also it is claimed in many articles that Spartans were the first to use olive oil on their bodies, but I'm aware of sources which credit this practice to the Cretans. Also most modern sources admit that we know very little on this topic because the Spartans were being secretive about their traditions, which implies that all conclusions are tentative. Miskin 17:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good arguments all, though in the case of Sparta the preponderance of the sources (Plato, Plutarch, Aelian) seems to be on the side of universal pederasty, more or less chaste. I am sorry that you have not seen fit to apply these correctives to the articles in question, your input would have been welcomed even if at times critiqued. But if you would rather not touch this material I would be happy to integrate your ideas if you would be so kind as to provide me with references and citations. In the mean time, how do you want to handle the deletions that have prompted this exchange? Haiduc 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The views of Xenophon and Aristotle are attested in "Athens and Sparta" by Anton Powell (p. 228), who by the way supports your side, though he admits that it's all an assumption due to our lack of knowledge (when it comes to Sparta). About the Cretan origin of the olive oil use, I don't remember where I read it, but I'll get back to you. It's not that I have a taboo about editing the homosexuality-related articles or anything, it's just a topic that doesn't interest me all that much. I've occasionally expressed my opinions when I thought that undue weight was given towards one side (such as in the matter of Patroclus and Achilles), but I've never thought of making long edits. If you judge that the section I removed is relevant and not repetitive, then you should go ahead and restore it. I do believe however that it needs to be reworded. Miskin 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I look forward to your other references. As for the article, I will replace the text, making corrections as necessary. I really do appreciate your input into all this, I would not be at all surprised if at times I do pull too far in the opposite direction when correcting for modern anti-pederastic bias. As we both know, it is impossible for a writer to be completely objective about his own work - that's why authors have editors. Haiduc 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of "Sparta"

I just reverted an edit giving the meaning of "Sparta" as "a courageous warrior". I can't find a source; feel free to add it back if you can. Tadpole9 23:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The "upsetting" stuff.

In the UK, in 2003, a 3-part documentary was broadcast which talked about, amongst other things, the sexual politics of Sparta. The Wiki article just happens to have been written by me. There's a Channel 4 webpage, containing transcripts of the documentary here.

The section entitled The battle for supremacy here contains information on the sexual subjects so many Wiki editors find distasteful and/or frightening. Look in particular at the sections headed The land of beautiful women, Spartan 'thigh-flashers', and Marriage by capture.

Well, Bettany Hughes is a source, isn't she? Yes. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Powerful army"

I've changed "Sparta had the most powerful army" to "Sparta had one of the most powerful armies", since it is a matter of opinion. DurotarLord 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Peloponnesian War is in its last stages. A Spartan army, with unfriendly looks on their faces, are about to storm into Athens. Two old Athenians are talking. "Don't be concerned", says one. "They're only one of the most powerful armies in Greece - NOT the most powerful. It is a matter of opinion.". "Oh, great", his companion says. "For a moment I was worried". Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 23:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The following:

Spartan women were respected and played an important role in society, a rare case for the standards of antiquity. Bisexual relations were commonplace among Spartan women, and it was considered acceptable for married women to have affairs with unmarried girls in their prime. Some scholars assume that this custom paralleled the mentoring relations between Spartan males and adolescent boys, common in Dorian societies.

conflicts with:

Xenophon affirms that Lycurgus efficiently managed to keep pederasty out of the Spartan society. Aristotle was of the opinion that Sparta belonged to the type of military society that was based on heterosexual relationship, unlike some other Greek states of antiquity.

It also conflicts with the article Spartan pederasty. FilipeS 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on how the ancient sources - and we - define the term "pederasty". There was argument then, as there obviously is now, as to whether or not the Spartan's practiced "outrage", ie anal sex, or indulged in a more "chaste" relationship. There is a lot of confusion and hangups based on this, perhaps for reasons Freud would have understood. It won't end anytime soon. In the meantime, I'm going to remove the latter quote, above, from the article, thus alleviating the contradiction - for now. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Actually, I think a simple rewrite of the paragraph might clear the confusion. I don't think you need to remove the material. FilipeS 22:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

? ..... Rewrite it how?! It contradicted the paragraph next to it. It contradicted it so blatantly that you felt the need to comment on the talkpage about it! Don't worry about it, though. It'll be back soon, or something very closely resembling it will. So many people get so upset at the thought of "the ultimate warriors" being bi or homo-sexual. Unbelievable. I'm hetero myself, and I have no problems with the thought. Oh well. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hybris and pederasty are two different things - the Spartans could have been, and were by most accounts, pederasts without turning the boys into europroktoi. Haiduc 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, as they say. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sparta as a "World Power"

The introduction of Sparta as a "World Power" is patently ridiculous. Besides the Greeks the world consisted of Spaniards, the Celts, the Chinese, the Goths, the Aztecs, the Indians, the Egyptians, the Japanese, the Vikings etc., none of whom the Spartans had any power over, and were probably unaware of its very existence. Just because some author gets this silly notion that defeating the Persians in a battle (note that the Spartans did not actually conquer Persia) qualifies as becoming a “World Power” does not mean it is true or it belongs to the introduction of a Misplaced Pages article. NN 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I was about to thank you for starting a discussion until I noticed that you reverted before doing so. It's not very wise to remove something which comes with a reference, start a rv-war, and then come up with an argumentation which is based on your personal opinion. It's not how wikipedia works. According to your opinion Romans weren't a world power either. They didn't defeat not conquer every single people on the planet, nor were they aware of the existence of Aztecs, Japanese, Vikings (the term "Spaniards" didn't even exist at the time). Furthermore your personal views are based on an anachronistic perception of the ancient world, not to mention a misinterpretation of "world power". According to your arguments USA has never been a world power either. It never defeated nor Conquered Britain, Russia, China and France. So do I even need to ask for sources on your claims? Miskin 21:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Romans empire stretched from Britain to Ukraine. The Spartans were confined to Greece. You may believe that Rome and Sparta are comparable, but I doubt many would agree with you. As for the US, the term "World Power" is far more applicable to it. Note that I used the phrase "had any power over" which you twisted to "never defeated nor conquered". The US indeed has power over the policies of Britain, Russia, China, France, more than any other country. I simply don't understand your insistence in calling a nation whose influence was confined to Greece a "World Power". Also you repeatedly accuse me of being "anachronistic", however your use of the phrase "known world" is quite revealing. It appears that your argument is that Greece is known and the rest unknown. It is a very Eurocentric view. The Mayans could similarly claim to be a "World Power" because to them they are known, whereas the Greeks "unknown". So could the Chinese etc. etc. If anything in terms of land area and populations, Sparta never came close to even the near contemporary Chinese, Persian, Egyptian, Magadha, Mayan empire. Also you say Sparta acquired hegemony over Persia, which again is a inaccurate. Beating the invading Persians in a couple of battles is not acquiring hegemony. At best it is successful resistance. NN 22:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Today the world's most influential civilisation, whether you like it or not, is the one called Western Civilisation, and it happens to claim heritage from ancient Greece and Rome. Hence "known world" in such a historical context refers to the world that was known to the cultures of Western Civilisation, Spartans and Greeks included. This is not something I made up, it's a standard term used by scholars worldwide. Plus this is not really a eurocentric view since prior to Rome's expansion most of today's Occident was admittedly barbaric. The fact that you oppose the use of "known world" in that context doesn't mean that Sparta can't be regarded as a world power, which is defined by the New Oxford American dictionary as "a country that has significant influence in international affair", and it has nothing to do with your criteria of "size" and "population". "China" and "India" were not unified political entities like in modern times (another anachronism?), and therefore incomparable to Sparta. In that respect, all the cultures you mentioned outside the Western's notion of "known world", could equally be identified as world powers in their respective "worlds". All you need is at least one neutral source. The Roman Republic was very much comparable to Sparta and was a world power long before it expanded outside of Italy. Following the Peloponnesian war, Sparta had assumed hegemony over both Greece and Persia (directly or indirectly), being dominant on both land and sea. This has lead modern scholars to assume that had a strong ruler "modernised" the Spartan insitutions, we'd be talking about a Spartan Empire today. Contrary to Rome, Persia and modern states such as USA, UK etc, Spartans weren't interested in assimilating the peoples they overpowered. So in an ancient military society where citizenship is inherited by blood, it is only natural to observe a population reduction. If you think that Spartans influence was confined to Greece then I would advise you to read some more on the topic. If you don't come up with a source which puts my source into question, I'll restore the original edit by WP:POV. Miskin 23:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Today the world's most influential civilisation" this is unrelated to what we are discussing. We are not discussing influences on today's civilizations. We are discussing whether 2500 years ago Sparta was a "World Power". It would make the discussion easier if you stayed on the subject.

"standard term used by scholars worldwide" is a weasel phrase.

"a country that has significant influence in international affair" So how exactly did Sparta have a "significant influence in international affairs" of the Gauls, Celts, Maurya, Chinese, etc. etc.?

""China" and "India" were not unified political entities like in modern times." I fail to see your point. There were large empires (much larger than Sparta) present in both India and China. What do you mean by "unified political entity"? Maurya may not have occupied all of modern India, however its population was possibly a hundred times larger than Sparta's.

"The Roman Republic was very much comparable to Sparta and was a world power long before it expanded outside of Italy." Only if one goes by your definition of a "World Power" having its influence confined mostly within one country.

Again you claim "Sparta had assumed hegemony over both Greece and Persia (directly or indirectly)" without answering how it had hegemony over Persia without having conquered it, or having actually sent an army to Persia?

"lead modern scholars to assume that had a strong ruler "modernised" the Spartan insitutions, we'd be talking about a Spartan Empire today" Speculation that is not relevant to the issue being discussed, to wit whether Sparta was a "World Power".

"Spartans weren't interested in assimilating the peoples they overpowered. So in an ancient military society where citizenship is inherited by blood, it is only natural to observe a population reduction." And how does this support Sparta being a "World Power"?

You linked to the Wiki article on "Great Power" which reads "A Great power is a nation or state that, through its great economic, political and military strength, is able to exert power over world diplomacy. Its opinions are strongly taken into account by other nations before taking diplomatic or military action. Characteristically, they have the ability to intervene militarily almost anywhere, and they also have soft cultural power." None of this applies to Sparta. Nowhere do I see any evidence that Sparta exerted "power over world diplomacy". Did the Gauls, Celts, Mayans, Chinese, Slavs, Mauryans take Sparta's "opinions ... strongly ... into account ... before taking diplomatic or military action" No.

Your arguments are unconvincing and the source you cite James R. isn't certainly the last word. What kind of a source is this anyway, you don't even have the last name or the year of publication? What exactly does the source say? Does it make the same arguments you make or does it have something more to say? If you restore the edits I will either have to 1) revert or 2) clarify the absurdities of calling Sparta a "World Power" or 3) bring others into the discussion. NN 00:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You can bring as many people as you want, maybe it will save me some time from repeating myself. Your first argument against Aztecs and Chinese is clearly irrelevant for reasons already mentioned. Your second argument is based on erroneous hypotheses, e.g. that Sparta's influence was restricted over Greece, or that Greece and Italy were "countries", or that Greek states such as Athens were insignificant (ignoring the fact that Athens was also a world power at the time). I would remind you that the last little state which assumed hegemony over Greece conquered its way all the way to India (read up on Macedon). This proves that hegemony over ancient Greece did imply world power status. I mentioned Sparta's traditionalist institutions in order to point out how a world power can exist efficiently without having to influence foreign nations by military submission. Don't ask me to explain any further how Sparta influenced the Persian Empire and "known world" politics. One thing I'm not going to do is give out lectures every time an editor debates on something as factual as the Dorian mythological descent from Heracles. You should have done your homework before questioning the edits. If you think that this one source is not credible then make a google search. Let me help, have a look at a purely scholarly source:

"Now, when the Athenian Empire was suddenly added to that of Sparta, and Sparta had become in reality a world power, the Spartan government was unable to devise any other policy" [The Character of Lysander William K. Prentice

American Journal of Archaeology,]

Even more popular is the term "superpower", which according to my dictionary definition it is a stronger term than "world power" (in the sense that a superpower is one of the most powerful world powers). This is a more common term in general, and you can easily see how its use with Persia, Sparta and Athens meets consensus, e.g:

Thucydides tracks how a new strain of war virus, Athenian imperial aggression, develops and spreads in a "long war" between superpower-dominated city-state coalitions that, like Bobbitt's 20th-century war, lasts nearly 80 years (479-404BC). Thucydides' "long war" begins with a 50-year cold war between an established superpower necessarily conservative in foreign policy (Sparta) and an emerging superpower addicted to its own superabundant interventionist energies (Athens).

In brief, unless you are aware of a source which presents an alternative view, then I see no reason to continue this discussion. Miskin 01:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also linking superpower in order to make a point. Using "world power" was moderate from my part, since the clearly more popular term which describes Sparta and Athens in literature is 'superpower'. Miskin 01:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Your first argument against Aztecs and Chinese is clearly irrelevant for reasons already mentioned." Don't see any reasons not already refuted.

"You should have done your homework before questioning the edits." You are questioning the way I operate, it is best to stick to the topic and not get into personal attacks.

"Don't ask me to explain any further how Sparta influenced the Persian Empire" You cannot "further" explain something you haven't begun explaining. Yes, the Spartans defeated the invading Persian armies in a couple of battles, it does not follow that they acquired "hegemony" (your words) over Persia.

"I would remind you that the last little state which assumed hegemony over Greece conquered its way all the way to India (read up on Macedon)." Alexander by virtue of conquering Egypt and Persia can lay claim to have created a "World Power". It does not follow that every Greek state that dominated Greece before him was also a "World Power". It is like saying the Mohawks were a World Power because the US is one now.

You ignore the points I make for example I find no answer to my earlier point ""a country that has significant influence in international affair" So how exactly did Sparta have a "significant influence in international affairs" of the Gauls, Celts, Maurya, Chinese, etc. etc.?"

As this topic is contentious it should be moved to a section titled for example "Sparta as a World Power", and mentioned that which authors believe so, and also what facts support and oppose such a designation.

NN 02:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Spartans under Agesilaus II invaded Persian ground and Persia couldn't do anything about it. It was only due to conflicts between other Greek states that Persia wasn't ultimately conquered. Maybe that gives you a better idea about Sparta's power and influence at the time. Look, this is getting childish, I'm not going to continue a debate based on original research. I provided you with some sources which demostrate that both Sparta and Athens are considered "world powers" and even "superpowers" in western literature. If you have any objections then publish your own work about it and we'll include it as an alternative view. For the time being I'm not planning to waste more time with such blatant POV. Miskin 12:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are a series of "ifs and buts". Sparta could be a "World Power" if its population did not decline, but it did. Agesilaus could have conquered Persia if the Greeks had not fought amongst themselves, but they did... and so on. Well, we have to deal with what really happened rather than potential. I am not going to get into speculation about Sparta's potential. If out of a thousand authors only two regard Sparta as a "World Power" then it should be noted.

You refuse consistently to answer the points. You yourself linked to the Wiki article on "World Power" which says ""a country that has significant influence in international affair" So how exactly did Sparta have a "significant influence in international affairs" of the Gauls, Celts, Maurya, Chinese, etc. etc.? I have made this point twice before but no answer, just digressions.

You may arbitrarily divide the world into the "known" and "unknown" but that is "anachronistic" in the 21st century. Essentially you are saying that "World" does not need to include Celts, Gauls, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Egyptians, etc. etc. and only Greeks and Persians matter. Such a view would have been acceptatble in the 19th Century but now is anachronistic.

Speaking of Agesilaus, take a closer look at the actual history. Read the article Corinthian War. It says "the Spartan fleet was decisively defeated by a Persian fleet early in the war, an event that effectively ended Sparta's attempts to become a naval power." The picture certainly is not of Spartan "hegemony" over Persia. If anything it appears Persia effectively got the Greeks to fight amongst each other and switched sides to prevent any from getting too strong.

Also Agesilaus invaded the satarpies of Persia, not the core of Persia. The Persians never had to fight him, they simply got the other Greeks to fight Sparta. Hardly a "World Power" when it is not even dominant in possibly the 5% of the World that consists of Greece and Persia. NN 15:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A state doesn't need to conquer the entire world in order to be regarded as a world power, this is only your personal interpretation of the term. In fact it doesn't even have to be capable of doing so. The fact alone that Sparta was capable of conquering Athens and invading Persia makes it a world power, not to mention a superpower. Those "ifs" aim to give you an idea of Sparta's geopolitical power, they're not any criteria to be met. The United states of America do need to conquer another nation in order to prove their geopolitical superiority and world power status, the other nation is already aware of the "ifs" involved. Therefore "ifs" are important, since they exert influence. Sparta already _was_ a world power, its population decline and traditionalist institutes are the reason it didn't become a super-state or a huge Empire like Rome and Persia, which doesn't necessarily imply "world power" (unless of course you believe that Algeria is geopolitically more powerful than France or even Israel). You asked me how Sparta influenced Persia and I replied, now you're coming up with a new argument that "it didn't conquer Persia". The article on world power speaks about the term in modern times, I thought that was evident enough. Plus WP:CITE clearly states that you can't use a wikipedia article as a source for editing another article. If we were to ignore the notion of "known world" or even "world known to the Greeks" as you suggest, then we should not be allowed to use "world power" for ancient states at all, which is a different POV altogether. If you look at serious sources on the web you'll find out that a great number of them refer to Athens and Sparta as superpowers. This is not just something worth being mentioned, it is a consensus. I can quote many more sources if you like. If you can cite a source which supports the opposite, then it can be presented as an alternative view. I hope I have answered your points. Miskin 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't answer the points I make and twist what I say. You write "A state doesn't need to conquer the entire world in order to be regarded as a world power, this is only your personal interpretation of the term" Show me one place where I said that!

"The article on world power speaks about the term in modern times" Though the article is about Sparta, the Wiki article is from the 21st Century as are its readers. Too late for you to say that the article does not apply after you yourself linked to it!

Also read the article King's Peace. It says "The single greatest effect of the Peace of Antalcidas was the return of firm Persian control to Ionia and parts of the Aegean." Essentially when Sparta was troubling it, Persia got Athens to fight it. When Athens became too strong Persia switched sides and supported Sparta, and received "Ionia and parts of the Aegean". The picture is of Persia determining the outcomes of Greece by playing one against the other, rather than Sparta having "hegemony" over Persia. I understand that a couple of authors hyped up Sparta's influence, but it doesn't seem dominant in Greece/Persia let alone the "World". NN 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to twist what you say but this is the sense I make from your arguments, and I think this is the sense anyone would make. Well this is precisely why wp policy doesn't permit using wp articles as sources. POV-pushing frequently passes unnoticed and this is why most Persian wars-related articles are at a miserable condition. According to Britannica (2006 edition, article 'Sparta'), during the Corinthian War Sparta came against Athens, Corinth, Argos, Thebes and Persia at once. To quote directly: "In the Corinthian War (395–387) Sparta had two land victories over Athenian allied states and a severe naval defeat at Cnidus by a combined Athenian and Persian fleet." This was no Persian victory as the wp article claims, according to other sources it was primarily a battle fought by the Athenians with part of their fleet borrowed from Persia, while the Athenian Conon was in charge. The article needs to be corrected. And yet the fact that Persia cannot even face Sparta on land and prefers to ally itself with Sparta's enemies makes my point even clearer. In that respect the Peace of Antalcidas was the result of the war between Sparta and the Greek states who seeked Persia's help, not a war between Sparta and Persia. This is not about Sparta being in average more powerful than Athens or Persia, after all Persia had been a superpower for much longer. It only comes down to the fact that Greek states like Athens, Sparta and Thebes were in fact world powers that period, and superpowers during their hegemonies. If you don't understand the limitations of the term "world power" applied to antiquity, then what about using superpower? It doesn't imply a geographic extent. Miskin 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"The picture is of Persia determining the outcomes of Greece by playing one against the other, rather than Sparta having "hegemony" over Persia." It means two things: a) that Persia was well aware that she could not subdue the Greeks by force and therefore preferred to use diplomacy to keep them at war with each other b) that the leading Greek states were in fact world powers, or superpowers if you prefer, fighting for supremacy against each other. The first point actually reveals a strong point in Persian diplomacy, as well as a limited potential of the Persian war machine. Miskin 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To make the long story short, your initial argument was "Beating the invading Persians in a couple of battles is not acquiring hegemony. At best it is successful resistance", then when you learned about Sparta's real geopolitical influence it changed to "Also Agesilaus invaded the satarpies of Persia, not the core of Persia." You have a personal agenda and no matter what happens you'll keep coming up with new unsupported arguments to keep me busy. So let's settle this, I'm suggesting to change world power to superpower in order to satisfy your denial of Western historiography's perception of "known world". What do you say? Miskin 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Countries prefer to let others do the fighting, even if they are militarily strong. In WWII they said "the Americans will fight the war to the last Russian". The US did that not because it was militarily weak, but because it is smarter to let the others do the fighting rather than suffering casualties. This is pretty standard behavior through history, your inference of Persian weakness is wrong.

We now have a growing list of "World Powers" to include Athens, Thebes, Sparta and of course Persia. So the statement could read that "Sparta, along with Athens, Thebes, and Persia was a World Power." Or "Sparta, along with Athens, Thebes, and Persia was a superpower". If that is what you believe then go ahead and make this change, if nothing else it gives a more accurate picture than just saying Sparta was a "World Power". So change the sentence to "Sparta, along with Athens, Thebes, and Persia was a superpower" if you wish. NN 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody denied the fact that Persia was a superpower, it only goes to show that the leading Greek states were too. Btw the list never grew, it's just that we're dealing with the article of Sparta in case you didn't notice. But you didn't reply my question. Miskin 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait I'm not sure I understand. Why do I have to mention Athens, Thebes and Persia in order to call Sparta 'superpower'? I never tried to imply that Sparta was the sole world/superpower above all others. It just said that Sparta 'overpowered' i.e. defeated at war both Athens and Persia. It looks as if you have had a bias against Sparta all along. Miskin 17:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no bias for or against Sparta, I am not even from the region. My interest is accuracy. Personally I believe that none on the list should be called a "World Power" or superpower, except maybe Persia. The reason to mention all rather than just one is that if only one is mentioned then a reader is likely to believe that Sparta was more powerful than the others, whereas history says it was at best a back and forth. Also the statement "Sparta defeated both the Athenian and Persian Empires" is inaccurate, "Sparta defeated both the Athenian and Persian Empires and was also defeated by both" is better. NN 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did answer your question, I worte: So change the sentence to "Sparta, along with Athens, Thebes, and Persia was a superpower" if you wish. NN 17:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"never won a war over Sparta"? And did Sparta ever win a "war" over Persia? You made changes to the Corinthian War article for which you were corrected. So you very well know that Persia beat Sparta in the sea battle. Also the mention of Athens and Persia is needed for context. To call Sparta a superpower without mentioning its rivals will give the readers a wrong impression. NN 13:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparta won the second Persian War against Persia. It was a pan-Greek alliance but the leadership was officially Spartan. After all the Persian army was hardly Persian, the vast majority comprised peoples subjected to the Great King. Miskin 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I was corrected but I don't want to insist as long as the article on Corinthian War specifies that the Persian navy were was in fact Cypriot Greek and Phoenician under Athenian leadership. Mainstream sources regard it as a joint Athenian-Persian expedition. The "Persian" fleet belonged to Persian puppet states. Miskin 13:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And by the way "repelling an invasion" is not as insignificant as you think. Maybe it didn't have a great significance for Persia at the Battle of Marathon, but it did at the Battle of Plataea. See the parallel between the Battle of Vienna which determined hegemony of the Habsburg dynasty over the Ottoman Empire. In both cases, the invader at the peak of his power lost a war which caused his long-term decline. Another parallel would Hannibal's invasion of Italy. In all three examples the invader was overpowered without being conquered. Miskin 13:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In that respect wouldn't you agree that both Athens and Persia were, at least individually, overpowered by Sparta? Miskin 14:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that that Athens and Persia were overpowered by Sparta. Though I have no doubt that some author somewhere can be found who has written that they were overpowered. You keep making inappropriate comparisons. There is no need to bring in Austria or Hannibal into this discussion. Whether or not they were overpowered says nothing about whether Persia was overpowered. If you look at the map you can see that Sparta is towards the south of Greece. All empires reach a point beyond which they do not expand, and Persia's boundary was northern Greece. Because it did not expand further into southern Greece is not because it was "overpowered". You have to understand that while Persia was the strongest enemy for the Greeks, for the Persian empire Greece was only one of many frontiers. NN 18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If Sparta is to be called a "superpower" it is important for the reader to know the strength of Sparta compared to other empires of the same time. Hence the information about Athens, Thebes, Persia, China and India are important. If we call Brazil a superpower because of its influence in South America, the reader should not make the mistake of believing that Brazil is a world superpower. Also information that Sparta was defeated by both Athens and Persia in battles is important. NN 18:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also as there are many issues here, so it is better to have a separate section rather than putting it all in one sentence in the introduction. NN 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop personal attacks. You have no evidence that I have any "personal agenda". You are reverting continuously without giving reasons, removing relevant information like the defeats Sparta had in battles with Athens and Persia. NN 19:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What you say about "Greece being one front" is true for the first but not the second Persian War. Mainstream western scholarship admits that Xerxes' failure to conquer Greece marked Persia's long term decline. It was the same with Hannibal and the Ottomans at Vienna. Despite what you say Cnidus was a joint Athenian-Persian naval success with a Phonician-Greek fleet over Sparta. It was a mere naval battle, not credited to Persia, and not regarde as a "war". Besides it doesn't change the result of the second Persian and Peloponnesian wars. The "The Oxford Illustrated History of Greece and the Hellenistic World" states that "Cnidus was not enough to cause Sparta to renounce her Asiatic ambition", and that "the 'autonomy' provision of the King's Peace was greatly to Sparta's advantage". Please stop causing disruptive edits and edit-warring, just accept that views based on original research cannot be taken into consideration. Your latest edits clearly made the article NPOV, saying that Sparta is a superpower does not mean that Persia is weak, you are the only person who perceives it in this manners. Miskin 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: If you think that I've delivered a personal attack then report me under NPA, but please stop throwing accusations like that. Miskin 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparta was a major regional power but I suspect that the 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.Dejvid 19:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I have been saying all along! Historians who would call Sparta a "World Power" or "Superpower" would be tiny in number, "major regional power" is accurate. Also the article given as a reference by Tom Palaima (Why peace is a conjuror's trick) is not about whether Sparta was a world power or not, but a more general topic of war and peace. NN 19:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If the number of sources is your problem then why didn't you say so? Does modern textbook on international relationships is neutral enough for you? "And Thucydides' account of Athens provides a striking historical illustration of the imperial aspirations of a bipolar superpower" . This is a modern textbooks on politics which cites the dispute of Athens and Sparta as a typical historical example of issues between superpowers. The books happens to be a standard reference on its kind, published by the Cambridge University Press. I'm not sure if you understand how credible it is, but let's say it cannot be refuted by a wikipedian's personal opinion. Another classic from the same publisher has it that "the 'superpower' contest between Athens and Sparta is equivalent to the recent cold war between USA and the USSR" . Those are books on international relationships. The first textbook which you implied to be biased was a historical textbook "Sparta and Lakonia", and the author's name is "Paul Cartledge". How many more sources do you want in order to accept that this is a consensus? I'm sure I can find countless more references in university sites on the web. How many sources do you need in order to accept that those scholars who regard Athens and Sparta as superpowers were not "tiny in number"? Miskin 19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No answer, as expected. The fact is that the Athens-Sparta superpower conflict is used as a typical example in political studies, this is why I find it important to mention it. Unless a source with an opposing view is cited, I will revert to the previous version. Miskin 20:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no revert, finally I chose to assume good faith and copyedit/de-POV Nayan's edits. They could be put into context if they were merged with the history section. Miskin 22:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I was away for a while. Still too many problems with Miskin's edits. Firstly note that it is not me but user Dejvid who said "the amount of historians that would be happy with superpower must be tiny". Also it is still absurd to say "reached the status of a superpower, by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires" without mentioning defeats in battles suffered by Sparta. You also introduced more wrong information into the article like "Sparta defeated individually at war" which WolfmanSF corrected.

Reasons for edits I am making 1) Removing the sentence from the introduction where it does not belong due to its misleading nature. 2) Removing details of history as there is indeed an article "History of Sparta" where such information rightfully belongs 3) As Miskin insists on calling Sparta a superpower, and admits that would also mean Athens, Thebes and Persia to be also called superpowers, adding that information to give the reader a more accurate picture. NN 12:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also because the struggle between the USA and USSR is compared to that between Athens and Sparta does not make the latter two superpowers. Just like the contest between McCain and Giuliani being compared to that between an owl and a fox does not make the latter two Presidential candidates. NN 12:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I missed the part where user:Dejvid (or any user) made the rules in wikipedia. I cited two credible sources to comply with WP:CITE and he didn't reply, and neither did you. The citation says that "the 'superpower' contest between Athens and Sparta is equivalent to the recent cold war between USA and the USSR". It is athens and Sparta that are directly called superpowers, not USA and USSR. I proved my point with sources, my edits are well referenced, and you have again not made any point _not_ based on your personal opinion. If you regret having added this section then revert to my earlier version, but stop edit-warring disruptively. I'm tired of this childish behaviour, as your compartment has shown you only care to defend your nationalist insecurities, you don't care about neither the article nor wp policy. Miskin 13:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User Dejvid does not make the rules, there is no need to be sarcastic by saying "I lost the part where...". If you look at Dejvid's list of contributions it is obvious he is a history expert. I am reverting the article because among other things: 1) To say that Sparta was a superpower that overwhelmed Athens and Persia without mentioning it lost battles to them is likely to mislead readers. 2) There is a section about the "History of Sparta" where details belong. NN 15:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I also said "or any user" whose opinion is more important over wp:policy. Much of the things you say don't make any sense, did you even read my edits before reverting them? Both Spartan defeats at the battle of Cnidus and Leuctra were mentioned, the only one missing is the Battle of Thermopylae. I know you are a new editor and for that I tried to assume good will, yet your disruptive editing and rv-warring have consumed my patience. All the information you question and revert have been supported by credible sources, which I can put on a separate section if you like. There's nothing more I can do to somebody who doesn't respect or acknowldge basic policies such as WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. I'll stop replying to you unless you come up with a reference to support the existence of an alternative view. Miskin 15:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As desired by you I am providing a reference for Sparta's defeats. The problems with your version remain more or less the same. Namely:

1) You write "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a superpower, and by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires". If you look at the link for superpower (which you yourself provide, yes you provide it, not me), it says "A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and has the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale" which is obviously inapplicable to Sparta. Secondly to say "overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires" is misleading to the reader as it does not indicate Spartan defeats.

2) There is a section about the "History of Sparta" where details belong.

3) You have been corrected by other editors, and there is a pattern here. The bias corrected is overstating Sparta's power and influence: WolfmanSF and Dejvid . NN 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already cited two credible textbooks on politics (Cambridge University Press) which refer to Sparta and Athens as superpowers of antiquity. You continue bringing up original research as argumentation against it. Please read up on WP:POLICY to understand better how edits are made. The section (which by the way you created) focuses on Sparta's geopolical course, not on its general history. Your motives for putting down Sparta and making bad, irrelevant edits are purely biased. Nobody ever implied that Persia was not a superstate or that Sparta was better, this a message only you receive. But just because you can't accept the fact that Persia was overpowered and then conquered by the Greeks, it doesn't mean that we are not allowed to talk about it. Iranian nationalist-motivated POV-pushing and vandalism have become very banal in Persian-war related articles? Some people are arguing that the Battle of Thermopylae never existed... If I were you I wouldn't want to be part of this banal, anti-western movement, which can only give a bad name to your people. Miskin 09:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The version I reverted had Sparta being claimed as a superpower. The Wiki article says "A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and has the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale;". This is a link you yourself created (yes, you not me) and it is obviously untrue for Sparta. Hence the revert. Also keep your facts straight, the version of mine you reverted did not have me blanking a section. NN 11:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading this debate with interest, and while I tend to support the opinion that regarding Athens and/or Sparta as a "superpower" is rather overimaginative and naive, I can see why those who support the presumption can easily make that mistake. What you, Miskin, shouldn't do is resort to paranoia and accusations of bias. It'll only make you sound bitter. No offence. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 12:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Geda, Yes, "naive" and "overimaginative" are appropriate descriptions. Actually the accusations of bias leave me amused rather than offended. Miskin has decided I must be Turkish (which I am not). If anything I am a huge admirer of the ancient Greeks, though more of the free-thinking Athens than the militaristic Sparta. NN 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I always preferred Sparta, myself. Even with all its faults. One of those faults being the kind of insularity and entrenched conservatism which meant that they would be doomed to fail sooner rather than later. "Superpower"?! They wished. It was all so ...... temporary, and "lucky", for want of a better word. They could always just manage to hang-on by the skin of their teeth; until they couldn't, of course. One of history's greatest failures. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 12:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the fundamentalist religions of today are Sparta reinvented. An emphasis on success in aggression rather than intellectual development. Of course more successful than Sparta because of the added layer of "divine sanction". NN 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's referenced by quality sources (which it is), then it is not original research. Do you have any sources contradicting?--Domitius 13:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, So you are saying that this following is an accurate description of Sparta "A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and has the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale;"? NN 13:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nayan, my opinion doesn't count. If it's referenced, it stays.--Domitius 13:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure it can stay if you insist. But I can also add enough referenced material to prevent it from misleading the reader. Specifically I can add information about how Sparta "could always just manage to hang-on by the skin of their teeth", and how it had little influence beyond Greece, let alone on a worldwide scale. As it will all be referenced it cannot be removed either. But the end result is that the article will be more accurate but also argumentative and less readable. If that is what you want that is what you will get. NN 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nayan you can add anything you want as long as it comes from a reliable source, is relevant to the article, and put into context. If I don't agree with it, then I have to find another reliable sources which presents an alternative view, and according to NPOV we'll include them both. Then it is up to you to understand what can be relevant to the article and/or misleading or implying a POV. For example the information you provided about the size of the Indian and Chinese armies was a POV-implication. Also, your reference must be also directly linked to your claim, for example if you find a source which calls Sparta a "local power", you can't derive that "therefore not a superpower because...". To support your current opinion, your reference must explicitely state something like "Sparta's geopolical power was in fact local", or "it's an exaggeration to think of Sparta as a superpower", or something along those lines. WP:NOR also says: "An edit counts as original research if...it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position". Isn't this what you've been trying to do all along? Miskin 14:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't be saying this, Garderner, if you were as involved as I am with the Persian-war related articles. The homonym article is up for a cleanup while all the articles on the invividual battles are being vandalised on a daily basis (under nationalist motives). Believe me but stating out the obvious is not paranoid. The advise I gave him is actually an approach I tend to follow myself by avoiding banal disputes. Nev may not be one of those people who go to extremes but he has the wrong approach and the wrong motives. He accused the mainstream term "known world" to be eurocentric and I changed from "world power" to "superpower", which came out indeed to be better referenced. He's been edit-warring and blanking out text under arguments that fall under original research. Also he has shown that he's not interested in improving Sparta, he's only interested in making Persia and the Asian civilisations look better - but he's been reading insulting implications between the lines. If you think I'm paranoid to notice this, then I think you're being naive. Sparta has gained much less attention than Athens in modern literature due to the latter's huge surviving literary work. In reality Sparta was no less important and influential for the course of western civilisation and thought. Putting emphasis on its geopolitical power at a crucial moment of european history is the least to do (always in a referenced context). To the point: So far I've cited five sources, two scientific articles, a specialised history text book, and two textbooks on political science published by the Cambridge University Press. I should put them in a separate section so they won't be missed by newcomers. To quote from WP:SOURCE:

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.

To define a reliable source:

In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication.

In brief, I honestly have no problem of considering an alternative view, e.g. that the terms 'superpower' or 'world power' exaggerate Spartan or Athenian geopolitical influence. However, I will not do so unless there is a good reason, and by that I mean a reference which explicitely states so. What I will not do and have never done so far, is to give in to argumentation based on original research and personal opinions. It is really as simple as that. Miskin 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To call Sparta a superpower or a World Power is absurd. Of course it is hard to find a source that says it was not a superpower. People don't waste time writing books or even get published refuting absurdities that may appear in a couple of sentences in other sources. So to prevent the article from misleading the reader (which it currently does) the best we can do is to add enough other facts to make the reader realize that to call Sparta a superpower or a World Power is absurd. NN 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If that what you think then I'm sorry but you'll have to deal with the current edits. What other facts would you like to add? How big Persia and China were? Is this really relevant to the article or does it remedy the "mislead" implications that only you can read? Miskin 14:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't understand what you mean by "absurdities that may appear in a couple of sentences in other sources". Those were sources on history and political science, I really can't imagine how more specialised it can get. What would you expect? A collection of publications called "Sparta: A SUPERPOWER, theory and proof"? Miskin 14:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If there were indeed a collection of publications called "Sparta: A SUPERPOWER, theory and proof" then there indeed would be sources refuting this nonsensical claim. As for your saying "that only you can read", you just missed the part about Gardner calling the claim "naive" and "overimaginative", or Dejvid saying only a tiny number of historians believe it. NN 14:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dejvid requested for more sources, they were provided, and he hasn't participated ever since. Concerning what other editors have said, I think Domitius has covered the topic: An editor's opinion doesn't count as long as an edit comes with a credible source. There are no more specific publications on Persia being a superpower, yet to you it can't be more obvious. What should have also been obvious (but is not), is that a state or a culture that defeated Persia at war and caused its long term decline (before it conquered it), is by definition a superpower too. As I said earlier I have absolutely no problem on changing the edit, but only as long as some sort of proof is provided, and by that I don't mean original research and personal opinion. As long as your argumentation is restricted on calling material published by CUP (one of world's best publishers) "other sources with nonsensical claims", I won't be answering to you. Miskin 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe Dejvid decided he had better things to do in life than get into a debate about an obvious absurdity. NN 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe you have never heard of my friend CheckUser. Miskin 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, go for it. Or was that just hype? NN 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you Nayan, why are you getting all defensive? Miskin 01:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I guess it was just an accident... This damned "remember password" checkbox never works properly. Miskin 01:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And now the article is being vandalised, nothing out of the ordinary . Miskin 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Who or what were you talking about then? You think I would want to hide when posting a comment on a talk page? As for the page being vandalized, you don't even need CheckUser. Try this and you will get your answer most of the time: http://www.networldmap.com/TryIt.htm or this: http://www.dnsstuff.com/ NN 01:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I was actually talking about WP:CHECK. Miskin 01:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you were talking about WP:CHECK. As you have both the IP addresses you can see for yourself that the posters are over 2,000 miles apart. Now if you lived in Dayton, Ohio it would be really interesting! NN 01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Repositioning and providing context to minimize the damage to an unbiased and accurate understanding by the reader from the misleading absurd claim of Sparta being a superpower/world power. No referenced material has been removed, do not remove any referenced material. NN 06:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just because you disagree with the sources, you can't restructure the article moving (hiding) text you don't like. Do you have any counter sources?--Domitius 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What Wiki policy are you relying on that says I cannot reposition material within an article? Keep in mind if I can't, neither can you. NN 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my two cents. Here it goes. Is everyone in agreement that Sparta was in fact a regional power. Also don't get why NN is talking about Sparta not dominating Indian and Chinese states as well as the Mayans and Vikings. For goodness sakes, the Spartans I am pretty sure did not ever know these people existed so how could they dominate them. You also talk about SParta's influence and power only being limited to Greece. I totaly disagree, because the Spartan's fought in and dominated Asia Minor in Turkey for a few decades. I don't know if we can compare Athens to Sparta in terms of being a super power with Athenian influence going way beyond Greece. I would think that Sparta would be a definite regional power and also a military superpower. Intrested in seeing how this debate will go. Kyriakos 06:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kyriakos, The reason I introduced China, India, Celts and Gauls into the discussion was because Miskin insisted on calling Sparta a "World Power" (his original edit) and then changed it to Superpower. Both World power and Superpower have worldwide implications, as you can see by clicking on the links. NN 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I initially added 'world power' because, at least in modern terminology, it is more modest than superpower, but you started going on about how the "known world" is a eurocentric view. Then it came out that superpower is quite mainstream in political and historical sources so I changed it (and you were fine with it in the beginning). Some people tend to erroneously think of 'superpowers' in terms of population and geographical span. History has proven many times that this is not the case, and the Greco-Persian was is only an example. Both Sparta and Athens proved it against Persia, and the use of POV criteria such as "size of an Empire" is just not enough in order to refute well referenced claims. What about the "age" of Sparta and Athens as independent states? They both go back to Mycenaean times, while the Achaemenid Empire was founded by Cyrus the Great, and lived only for two centuries. Doric Sparta existed independently for some 700 years, three times the age of the Achaemenid Empire, and Athens for much longer. This is another important criterion for example that Nev doesn't take into consideration, proving why WP:NOR exists. This is why we should not be using our personal views and let the experts do the math. Although such erroneous personal views are entirely not wikipedia's business, I don't mind adding the abundant word 'military' behind superpower in order to add some precision for people who may read between the lines and/or have an anachronistic interpretation of the term. Miskin 13:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling Sparta a superpower in any form remains absurd and nonsensical, whatever adjectives you may choose to put in front of it. However as you and Domitius insist you can have the word superpower in the article. The issue now is where the material is to be located and what other material will accompany it. NN 14:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The only sensible application of the word superpower to those states would be to call Athens or Greek states combined an intellectual superpower. Also note that I never advocated calling Persia a superpower. All I did was to point out given that as Athens, Thebes and Persia defeated Sparta in wars, if Sparta was to be called a superpower so should they be. NN 14:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting too repetitive. As I said, I'm not going to reply to original research and POV. Please read WP:ATT on how edits are made. Miskin 14:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is repetitive and a waste of all of our time as you won't stick to the discussion. I repeat "The issue now is where the material is to be located and what other material will accompany it." Neither of this is OR or POV. NN 14:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The material is fine where it is. What would you like to add to it? Is it relevant? Does it have a reference? Those are the questions you should be asking yourself instead of making hostile implications. You're the only person who's wasting other people's time, by not knowing how wikipedia works. I've tried to explain and even quoted the policy to you, the least you could do is ditch the arrogant behaviour and respect wikipedia's rules. When you keep calling the claims of a CUP reference "absurd" and "nonsensical" you're wasting our time. Miskin 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the material is not fine where it is. Also I am not the only one calling the CUP reference "absurd" or "nonsensical". For example Gardner said it was "naive" and "overimaginative". And you pretty well know your allegation of OR is false. NN 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the main dispute here is about the words 'world power,' 'superpower,' and so on. There's not (room for) a lot of debate about the facts of how far Spartan political influence extended, or where her soldiers fought and so on. And for every meaning of each of those words, you can dredge up a shopping-list of sources that use it that way. For instance, IR books that talk about Athens and Sparta (and they virtually all do) will call them both superpowers, because the authors want to make comparisons to the US and USSR during the cold war (incidentally, I don't feel that any nation or empire BEFORE those two should be called a superpower, but that's just me). I don't know, and don't particularly care about WP protocol, but shouldn't this (strictly linguistic) dispute be solved by taking a roll, and seeing if there's a clear majority one way or the other? -irked

Source of Xenophon quote

Can somebody add the source of the Xenophon quote? I can't find it.

Removal of Referenced Material

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)

It is funny to see you quote Hobson "the 'superpower' contest between Athens and Sparta is equivalent to the recent cold war between USA and the USSR". Do you understand the nuances of the English language? If the authors put the word superpower within quotation marks, it is not a good idea to take it to mean that they think Athens and Sparta were superpowers. Familiarize yourself with the usage of quotation marks. NN 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

So did you find out what the use of quotation marks implies? NN 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not what you orignally researched :) - I have wanted to remove this for some time now. Miskin 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

In British English single quotation marks have a very specific meaning, and it's not the one you think. Miskin 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'm really curious to see what you'll come up with next. Miskin 23:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think it's obvious what the quotation marks are for. A superpower within today's definition would be an anachronism then because the entire world was not known. The quotation marks are to draw emphasis to that, but Sparta was that period's equivalent of a superpower. Nevertheless, it is sourced and shall not be removed until we get a few counter sources (NN's personal interpretation and opinion don't count). If you want to add the quotation marks to the text, unless I hear any good reasons why not, I will not object.--Domitius 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotation marks for 'emphasis', that's rich! NN 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps you could tell me who he's quoting or making fun of.--Domitius 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

The sources use the term, ergo so can Misplaced Pages. 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)

Or I could revert just like you did, no? NN 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference he vainly questions is not even linked to the article anymore. I don't think he's worth wasting any more time with, his latest argumentation on the "quotation marks" makes me feel silly to even think of a serious reply. The fact that he's a new user was an excuse in the beginning, but now it is no more. What he doesn't know is that his extensively disruptive editing has already caught admin attention. I've done my best so far, but I'll be fooling myself if I keep "assuming good faith" for such an "editor". Miskin 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Domitius this argument, like most of his arguments so far, is just a pretext for making reverts. He invents new arguments against the edit every two days, although he has never fallen that low. Well, maybe I'm forgetting the one earlier tonight when he accused me for "removing a referenced comment" (alredy stated 5 lines below). In any case, I'm not going to enforce him continue underestimating other people's intelligence. Miskin 00:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Attention?

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)

Consensus or RfC

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

If "overpowering" is your problem then you can change it to "defeated at war", which reflects the same historical factuality in more words. But do not add your POV as you normally do. Miskin 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

The battles lost by Sparta are already mentioned in detail in the Rise and Decline section. Your addition is a abundant as it reveals a POV and adds undue weight to the article. Miskin 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

The article on Macedonia has to do with modern politics, land-claims, etc - nothing to do with ancient history, so there's a little huge difference which doesn't allow you to say "you did that there so you have to do it here". Now one other question for you... How on earth is any nation getting a bad name in the article Sparta?? Where does this new view come from?? We're talking about 2500 years ago, there's no Spartan state and there certainly is no Persia today. How do you expect us to take you seriously after knowing your personal views on the world? As for your "balanced objectives"... Let us just say that I'm immune to many things you have already brought to article: rv-warring, disruptive editing, POV-pushing, nonsense argumentation, ignorance of the policy - but one thing that really bothers me is to be taken for an idiot. Unless of course you say those things only to be heard by the newcomers, which would mean that you take them for idiots. Miskin 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

You can start as many RFCs as you like but it won't help much over a clear question of WP:POLICY. When it is announced that you went through all this based on your personal knowledge and interpretation people will laugh at you. When was the last time you made a contribution to this article? When did you care about imporving the article? Never. It makes me laugh to even hear you talking about "improving" the articles that you have almost vandalised. Miskin 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

You actually stalked Domitius and rv-warred with him in other articles, on matters you obviously couldn't care less about. This kind of stalking behaviour can only be perceived as an indirect threat against another user, an implication of the type "get off my back or I'll get on yours". This is really an inexcusable behaviour in wikipedia, and says a lot about your alleged neutrality. Miskin 21:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Let's not allow Fictional Hollywood movies dictate Misplaced Pages articles

Hi I was directed to this page regarding some on going disputes regarding the Sparta article.

Over the last couple of years I have seen a surge in incorrect, often fictional, additions being made to certain Ancient History articles based facts attained from Hollywood movies.

Please beware that movies like "300" and "Alexander" as well as their older variants are largely fictional and are often very superficial about the facts that they cover. In light of this, only references from widely accepted books and well-established sources are deemed acceptable in wikipedia.

Regarding usage of the word "superpower" to describe Sparta, which is one of many Greek City-states, is grossly incorrect since Sparta was neither a geographic, political, nor military superpower. Indeed the Spartans were often a Persian vassal city whereby the Persian empire would finance Sparta to (militarily) settle disputes with other Greek cities. Spartan commanders were often hired by the Persian empire to train divisions within the Persian navy and army and hence you should be able to see that while Sparta was strong among the Greek cities, it was heavily under the influence of an existing superpower.

Lets proceed our edits to this and other related artilces cautiously.... Mehrshad123 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite your sources and try to reach a consensus before removing referenced information from an article. At the moment there is not a single "counter-reference" to support yours and Nayan's claims. Only original research. Miskin 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Miskin - your name was referred to as one of the people introducing these invalid additions. Please see the definition of "superpower" - you are the one that is introducing original source information to this article. This is not a summary of a hollywood movie.Mehrshad123 00:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I feel obliged to direct you to WP:ATT, or the older WP:NOR and WP:CITE. The edits you remove are supported by numerous and very credible sources. Your approach on defining "superpower" is original research which I'm not going to enforce. And please don't remove content without discussion first. Miskin 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, another POV-warrior. Look I'm not going to continue your rv-war. I think it's time to refer to an administrator. Miskin 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what Wiki policy was violated by positioning your text (which I still think is quite dubious though referenced) inside the article? We could do a RfC and try to come to some sort of a consensus. NN 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your friend based his removal of text on his own personal views and conclusions, known in wp as original research. There's a clear policy against this practice, it is explicitely stated in WP:NOR and WP:ATT. Same goes for adding text, you must be able to reference it per WP:CITE. This must be like the 88th I'm linking those policies in the talk page. You might as well read them this time. I told you, you can start as many RFC as you want, we can even go all the way to ArbCom. You will soon find out that no matter how many editors get involved, wp:policy is non-negotiable. Nobody will take you seriously when they find out that you have based your claims on plain old OR. Miskin 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To all the POV pushers around here, a source has been cited from Cambridge Uni Press, and no sources contradicting have been cited. I don't get why you don't get that what you are doing violates WP:NOR. Just because you think Sparta cannot be defined as a superpower, it doesn't mean you can erase valid sources.--Domitius 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But - and this is a big but - no matter which way you put it, referring to Sparta as a "superpower" is very, very silly. No; really. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• deep sigh* Why is that so obvious to you Geda, but so very very hard to get through to some people? Is this how the remaining best years of my life (in any are left at all) are going to be spent? NN 00:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how familiar you are with books, but the Cambridge University Press is unarguably one of the oldest and most reliable publishers in the world, all its publications are a guarantee of credibility. Two sources on political science cited in Talk, are from this publisher. Then the rest of the three historical sources come from good houses, just not the best in the world like CUP. To me what is silly, is someone who criticises such material because in his own personal opinion, what they say is 'silly'. Maybe it's easier to think that your personal opinion is not based on solid arguments, or that your knowledge on history, political science etc might not be the one of an expert. Hence why original research is not allowed. Miskin 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is becoming a distraction. WP:RS (Cambridge University Press) vs WP:OR (no sources contradicting)... A "superpower" in the ancient world speaks for itself. The reader definitely understands the comparable context. I wouldn't change a sourced edit to address explanations for total idiots (those are not reading us). I'm glad you all think this is silly. NikoSilver 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are 3 people (all from the same country or ethnicity) holding one opinion, and 3 others (from 3 different countries) holding another opinion, what does that tell you about bias? NN 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly of Iranian origin and Mehrshad is most likely an Iranian citizen. Gardener has a certain POV on the topic but he has neither participated in rv-warring, nor removed chunks of referenced text, nor complained about this in the past. Miskin 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw myself, Domitius and Nikosilver come all from different countries. Miskin 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you got it. I am as much of Iranian origin, as much Sparta was a superpower. Also do you understand the meaning of the word 'ethnicity' that I used? NN 01:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced and no counter sources have been cited. Misplaced Pages's content policies are crystal clear - the opinions of individual users (whether you or me) are of no significance. For once, Nayan is right: it's so very very hard to get through to some people.--Domitius 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care who the publisher is. It is wrong and it is a single source among millions to the contrary.

Please look on a map of the Classical period. Sparta is a dot on that map. Your source is obviously not fluent in English, or is as biased as you are. Either way the information is grossly incorrect and largely based on the "300" Hollywood trailer! (I understand that you are all very proud of your Greek nationality, but anyone with at least high school diploma will look at this article and laugh both at Misplaced Pages and the article)

Mehrshad123 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Insinuating nationalistic bias is not as uncivil as it would be to say that non-Greek users may not be informed for Greek history. The sources speak for themselves, and all we have here is someone with enough spite to go around and post messages for help to people who can't know better. Simply, in ancient times, a superpower was a superpower of its time, and compared to the others around. The "dot on the map" shows the city's center; not Lakedemonia, neither the conquests. Hell, you could say the same for Constantinople, or Rome; after all, they are just cities. NikoSilver 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is truth in that. The first time I read it I laughed, that is why I changed it. NN 01:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still laughing with this story, but for different reasons. Miskin 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Sparta is a dot on the map is actually embarrassing the Persians, so I don't really know why you said that. Miskin 01:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge Uni Press sources are not fluent in English. There's a novelty!--Domitius 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone (not sure who) said:

I don't care who the publisher is. It is wrong and it is a single source among millions to the contrary.

Sounds like a good argument for your RFC already. Miskin 01:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to actually get a look at at least one of these millions of sources. Alas, not to be ;-) --Domitius 01:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Touché. For the time being, there's 5 sources (among other discovered but uncited) against zero. The article mentions only two for the obvious practical reasons. Miskin 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Users interested in more than wrongly accusing informed editors for nationalistic bias following the wishes of spammers, can pick any of these 94 additional sources. NikoSilver 01:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful research Niko. You have unearthed the following evidence (94 sources) in favor of Sparta being a superpower, for example: 1) Cracking the AP World History Exam, 2004-2005 Edition - Page 101 "Athens became the ancient Greek equivalent of a superpower" 2) The Superpower Odyssey: A Russian Perspective on Space Cooperation - Page 124 by Yuri Y Karash - 1999 - 339 pages "He was born in Sparta, Wisconsin," 3) 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

And the above 3 matches from only the top 8 results. Now not only do we know that Sparta was a superpower, but also it was sometimes called Athens or Thebes. Also Wisconsin was a district of Sparta... NN 01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that credible publications, academic articles and university pages mention Sparta and Athens as superpowers. Which is only normal. Miskin 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Athens and Thebes also had their day.--Domitius 01:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, see WP:NOFEEDING. NikoSilver 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Add to this the results from google scholar, and edu sites. Miskin 01:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. () Rephrasing as follows:

Users interested in more than wrongly accusing informed editors for nationalistic bias following the wishes of spammers, can pick any of these 94 additional books, or any of these 266 additional academic papers. NikoSilver 01:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(keeping on reading more of the 94 books found by Niko to prove Sparta was a superpower) 4) Classical Art: From Greece to Rome - Page 3 by Mary Beard, John Henderson - 2001 - 298 pages ... city-states of classical Greece (Athens, Sparta, Corinth, and the rest), ... Rome stronghold to the greatest imperial superpower the world had ever known. 5) Alexander the Great: a reader - Page 33 by Ian Worthington By the end of the 340s BC Macedon had become a superpower. 6) The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon - Page 13 by Robert Jervis - 1989 - 266 pages Hostages Because of mutual vulnerability, each superpower has involuntarily given .

Thanks to your wonderful research I now also know Sparta was sometimes called Rome, Macedonia, USA, or USSR. NN 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Macedon didn't conquer Sparta, however it did conquer Persia. Also one of the sources does compare Sparta and Athens to USA and USSR. You can take your pick on which one Sparta may be. Miskin 02:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also from what you just cited: "By the end of the 340s BC Macedon had become a superpower." The citation states that Macedon was a superpower already during its hegemony over Greece, before it conquered Persia. Therefore hegemony over Greece (see Spartan hegemony), implies superpower status, a concept you never accepted before. Miskin 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, calling Macedonia a superpower (worldwide scale) is absurd. Your position becomes justifying one absurd edit with conclusions derived from another absurd source. NN 03:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems all the disagreement here is over the use of the term superpower. The OED defines superpower as "a nation or state having a dominant position in world politics; one which has the power to act decisivly in pursuit of interests which embrace the whole world...". It is not right to apply this term to Sparta, nor to any power of the time, simply because world domination was not possible. Superpower is a modern term based upon the notion that one nation can affect the entire globe. I suggest the term "hegemony" be used instead to refer to the dominance of Sparta over Greece at one point, as this term originated in discussing the dominance of Greek city states. There certainly is a lot of academic evidence to give weight to that point. User:Hodgetts 06:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this debate: if a city-state could defeat both the Athenian and Persian empires (both of whom were superpowers) that city state, namely Sparta, is a superpower. Gregsinclair 08:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to wade into this rather silly argument except that two things need to be pointed out: 1) the term Superpower was coined to describe the dominant nuclear powers that replaced the Great powers, to apply it to antiquity is at best a journalistic façon de parlé at worst it is obfuscatingly ahistorical, 2) regardless of how useful the term is as a piece of explanatory shorthand it is still a conceptual construction placed on the empirical facts of Sparta's influence and strength. If we must play antique military Top Trumps why not tabulate the relative strengths of the Aegian players? Twospoonfuls 13:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is all this fuss with the term "superpower". I can live without it in the article, but, at the same time, I don't see why its usage is such a great problem. Yes, "superpower" is a modern term, Twospoonfuls, but classicists very often use it retrospectively to describe the situation in ancient times. Cartledge speaks about "Greek superpowers" (Sparta and Lakonia, 223), while Shirley and Romm call it "the traditional military superpower" of Greece (Selection from the Greek histories, xvi). Personally, what I'm not sure about is the asssertion that Sparta "overpowered Persian empire". Yes, Sparta and the other Greek states won Persia during the Persian Wars, but this was a defensive war; thus, we cannot speak about overpowering, but about an effective defence. This defence became an offensive, which was however limited to the coast areas of Asia minor, and was primarily led by Athens (Cimon) and its League, and not by Sparta. Later, during the Peloponnesian War Sparta made an alliance with Persia, whose role was primordial in order the Spartans to win over the Athenians. Therefore, we could conclude that during the Peloponnesian War, the Persians acted as an "external military and financial superpower", manipulating the Athenians and the Spartans. The first time Sparta effectively attempted to question Persia's pre-eminence over the vast areas of Asia was during Agesilaus' leadership. But again, despite some military successes, Agesilaus was recalled to mainland Greece before implementing his big plans. So, once again, despite the "potential" than may have existed in Agesilaus' initiatives, he did not manage to "overpower Persia", who remained the dominant world power in a huge areas of Asia, Middle East and Egypt. We can say that Sparta was a superpower able to contest Persia's pre-eminence in Asia, Asia Minor, Middle East etc., a superpower that for many years dominated the areas of Greece, coastal Asia minor, and south Italy, a superpower that had reached an equal military strenght with Persia, but I am not sure Sparta ever managed to overpower the Persian empire (as it did indeed with the Delian League

Hello Yanni and Twospoonfuls, Yes this is a rather "silly" argument and a lot of "fuss" over one word. Essentially my point is that to have the sentence "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower, and by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires" at the VERY TOP (second sentence) of the article and linking to superpower (power on worldwide scale) is misleading to the reader. I offered two compromises 1) Add other material in proximity that balances the sentence by mentioning Sparta's defeats by Athens, Persia and Thebes. 2) Move the sentence down to the middle of the article. The consistent answer I get from Miskin and Domitius is that neither is acceptable as "superpower is from a referenced source". Note that I did not insist on removal of the word superpower even though the link to the Wiki article it makes mentions "power on a worldwide scale" in its very first sentence and thus makes it inapplicable to Sparta. NN 14:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is applicable, because the world was not perceived in the way it is perceived now, and because prominent classicists with much better knoweldge of us about this period regard it as applicable! Now, the rewording of the "overpowering of Persia" is something different, and, as I explained above, I also have doubts about the accuracy of this particular assertion.--Yannismarou 14:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yanni you do a pretty good job of summarizing the situation between Sparta and Persia. Would you not agree that it is misleading to the reader to have ONLY the following sentence in the introduction without mention of Spartan defeats. "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower, and by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires". NN 14:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To the reader the word superpower and the Wiki article it links to has a particular meaning that applies to the current world. If it is to be used in the sense that "prominent classicists with much better knoweldge" would have used it, then it should be clarified that it is being used in that sense, and not the sense that it is used in the modern world, and not the sense the Wiki article it links to uses it. The objective is not to mislead the readers. NN 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Spartan defeats are already mentioned in the 'Rise and Decline' section. We can't go against wikipedia guidelines in order to compromise with what an individual editor may read between the lines, this has clearly not a place in the head. In fact Sparta's individual defeats are more emphasised than its victories, the battle at Mycalae is not even mentioned. Miskin 14:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin I presume when you write "this has clearly not a place in the head" you mean that other material mentioning Sparta's defeats do not have a place in the introduction. What exactly is your logic justifying mentioning Sparta's "overpowering" Athens and Persia in the introduction, but not mentioning Sparta's defeats by these two? NN 14:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nayan you just keep using argumentation that is already treated by wp policy. For example, you cannot use another wp article as a source for edits, this is a basic principle. Not only you cite another wp article, but you base your argument on you personal interpretation of the article. What characterises Sparta is that it was a military and later a political superpower. This has to be in the head. Miskin 14:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get involved much (at all) in ancient Greek history, but I did study the Peloponnesian war at one time. Perhaps it would be better to state "Following its defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta became the hegemonic power of classical Greece". --A.Garnet 14:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I find A.Garnet suggestion excellent! NN 14:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. Because the battle at Mycalae did not reverse the course of the War. I repeat and I stay there: what may be misleading is the assertion that Athens overpowered Persia. It is another thing to say that Sparta "won over Persia during the Persian wars" or that "Agesilaus invaded Persian territory", and another thing to see that Sparta managed to overpower Persia. There was no definitive military victory of Sparta that hints at such an "overpowering". Personally, I would be OK with a wording such as: "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower, by overpowering Athens and effectively confronting the Persian troops in various occasions". or something like that ... I'm not a native English speaker, and, therefore, somebody else may think a better wording.--Yannismarou 14:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I find A. Garnet's suggestion as a good compromise between two referenced, conficting views. As long as Nayan's view is based on POV assertions, there's no room for such a compromise. Miskin 14:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful, we may actually have a compromise. I find A. Garnet's suggestion acceptable too. NN 14:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of the sources don't call Sparta a "super-power", you may not find sources arguing that "Sparta wasn't a super-power" because it's an absurd fringe idea to begin with, so Nayan's view is based what the majority of scholarly sources regard Spartans as, just a power within Greece. --Mardavich 14:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Persia did never actually defeat Sparta in battle. The fall of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae is not counted by historians as battle of Sparta per se, otherwise we wouldn't be talking for the Battle of Leuctra as the first Spartan defeat on land. Furthermore both Thermopylae and Leuctra are mentioned, while Spartan victory over Persia at Mycalae is not. Miskin 14:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Read again please, I said there's no room for such a compromise under the given circumstances. Miskin 14:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sparta wasn't even an empire, let alone a super-power. 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. --Mardavich 14:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It successfully defended itself against China too, and then went on to install a regime in Cambodia. NN 14:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, What "given circumstances"? About what my view is based on? I am accepting A. Garnet's suggestion for the Wiki text. But you say you won't compromise based on my views? You want me to change my views before we compromise? I thought the compromise was over what text is supposed to go into the article. What my views are is of no consequence. NN 14:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Miskin, Persia never defeated Sparta in a war as a whole, but, at the same time, Sparta never overpowered Persia (it just wan a defensive war against Persia, but again not aone; having the necessary aid from the rest of the Greek states). I repeat my proposal: 1) keep the term "superpower", 2) reword the inaccurate assertion that Sparta "overpowered Persia". I do not want (and I cannot) impose my proposal unilaterally, but if I see that it is backed by a considerable number of editors here, then I'll remove the protection and I'll rephrase the relevant part of the lead as above.--Yannismarou 14:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that you people are confusing facts with theories. It is not a fact that "Sparta was a superpower" no 5th century greek would refer to another city state as that. It is a fact that "Cartledge and Romm think Sparta is a superpower" to which the obvious rejoinder is "who gives a shit, that still tells me nothing empirically true about Sparta which is what I'm reading this article to find out about". If we are going to introduce theories as facts it makes a nonsense of the whole business since it replaces verifiable truth with argument from authority. To put it another way, it doesn't matter if the entire history faculty at Harvard chanted "Sparta was a superpower" in unison, it would still be an opinion not a fact. Twospoonfuls 14:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think most editors who have joined this discussion are saying that it is inappropriate to call Sparta a superpower. I suggest we go with A. Garnet's wording which Miskin says is a "good compromise". NN 14:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Nayan don't manipulate what I said. It would be a good compromise if the opposing view had a minimal suppport of anything other than POV. The given circumstances involve a number of POV assertions on one hand (added a new one by Mardavich in the lot), and a number of referenced assertions on the other. Out of pure respect of wp:policy, I can't even think of a reason to compromise any further. Miskin 14:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou I suggested changing "overpowered" to "defeated a war", which has no room for doubt. Miskin 14:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Twospoonfuls, theories play a great role in our lives, in science and in encyclopedias as well. Some scientists laughed at Enstein's theories and regarded them as an "opinion"! Yes, calling "Sparta" a "superpower" may be an opinion, but it may be a "well-backed opinion"; so, why shouldn't we include it? And empirical reading is not enough for me. An article can also include conclusions, and conclusions may include opinions; my only interest is to have well-backed and well-cited opinions. After all, I don't think it is that easy to distinguish "opinions" from "facts".--Yannismarou 14:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

However I don't agree that a "defensive victory" is important only to the defender. That would be true in the Ottoman siege of Malta, or even the Persian defeat at Marathon. However the second Persian war can only be compared to the Roman Republic's victories over Pyrrhus and Hannibal, or the hegemony of the Habsburg dynasty assumed over Europe and the Ottoman Empire as a result of the Battle of Vienna. Miskin 14:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that Persia, an undisputed superpower, never managed to defeat Sparta in battle (and not just at war). Sparta invaded Asia Minor and Persia had to ally itself to the anti-Spartan Greeks in order to repel a futher invasion. It doesn't take a logician to derive that Sparta was also a superpower at an equal (if not superior) level. After all Sparta lived as an independent state for over 700 years, Persia did only for some 200. Miskin 15:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

'A.Garnet' wrote "Perhaps it would be better to state "Following its defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta became the hegemonic power of classical Greece". Miskin said this was a "good compromise". I think A. Garnet's suggestion is excellent. I propose this as a compromise to the existing text in the introduction. NN 14:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NN, Miskin did not say that. And it is not polite to twist other people's words. I honestly try to believe that you did not understand what Miskin said, and I ask you to read more carefully his response to Garnet's proposal.--Yannismarou 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yanni, Please refrain from personal attacks. You are accusing me of being impolite. NN 15:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin wrote "It would be a good compromise if the opposing view had a minimal suppport of anything other than POV." I am sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. Could you please explain? Also wrote "The given circumstances involve a number of POV assertions on one hand (added a new one by Mardavich in the lot), and a number of referenced assertions on the other." Is the fact that Mardavich expressed an opinion stopping you from compromising? This opinion is in the talk page only, why should that be material to what is written on the actual page? NN 14:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Nayan stop trying to manipulate other people's words, it just makes you look anti-sportsmanlike, let alone desperate. Miskin 15:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To cite myself from above: Please Nayan don't manipulate what I said. It would be a good compromise if the opposing view had a minimal suppport of anything other than POV. The given circumstances involve a number of POV assertions on one hand (added a new one by Mardavich in the lot), and a number of referenced assertions on the other. Out of pure respect of wp:policy, I can't even think of a reason to compromise any further. Miskin 15:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really not understand the difference between the utility of views supported by POV and the utility of views supported by references? Miskin 15:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to manipulate anything, I am asking you to explain what you mean. Sentences like "It would be a good compromise if the opposing view had a minimal suppport of anything other than POV." are not easy to comprehend. Why don't you answer a simple question: Do you find A. Garnet's text a good compromise? NN 15:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, NN, I still try not to believe that you pretend you do not understand: Miskin said that these would be a good compromise under specific terms that are not fulfilled right now. This is the meaning of his words. And your effort to twist them, and interprete them as you wish does not contribute to this discussion.

Miskin, about Persia, you proposed the wording "defeated a war". I want to have in mind the whole phrase, so I re-edit here my proposal for this part of this phrase: "by overpowering Athens and effectively confronting the Persian troops in various occasions". Do you have an objection with this wording, and if yes what is your counter-proposal?--Yannismarou 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yanni, you seem to have made a proposal to Miskin, as if you were representing the opposing view. In your proposal you are now reducing the debate to the word "overpowering", in essence accepting superpower by default. That is the important part of the argument. Talk about honesty! NN 15:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NN, if you have to accuse me of anything use this area and not my talk page. I reject your warnings, because I did not attack you personally, and it is not my problem if you fail to understand other people words, as you did with Miskin's comment. Now, if you still think that my comment constitutes PA, proceed to all the due actions against me. Nobody has imminity here; not me neither you.--Yannismarou 15:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If I believe you made a personal attack on my character with innuendoes about politeness and honesty then I will indeed ask you to cease. Before your make such innuendoes you should consider the possibility that convoluted sentences can be interpreted in various ways. NN 15:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really not understand the difference between the utility of views supported by POV and the utility of views supported by references? Miskin 15:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

People, do you realise Thucydides is used today as perhaps the foremost source on hegemonic warfare? If any term can be applied to Sparta, it is hegemon.

• "Diodorus recounts how the reception of the news of the repudiation of Spartan hegemony led to anger and demands for war with Athens" The True Cause of the Peloponnesian War, G Dickins - The Classical Quarterly, 1911.

• "as leaders of the moderate democratic party at this time, and although Plutarch mentions Thrasybulus and Archinus as op- posing the Spartan hegemony" - Athenian Foreign Policy in 396-395 BC, AF Bruce - The Classical Journal, 1963

• " no direct anti-Spartan action was takenin Greece and no active resistance was offered to Spartan hegemony" Athenian Democracy and the Revival of Imperialistic Expansion at the Beginning of the Fourth Century, S Perlman - Classical Philology, 1968.

• "the formula that was the basic ingredient of all future treaties between Sparta and her allies and that established the nature of Spartan hegemony" The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, D Kagan - 2006 (take note, Donald Kagan among most authoratative scholars on Thucydides and classical Greece).

• "After a detailed survey of the hegemonic power of Athens and Sparta, Kagan argues that there existed no basic conflict between them" Reflections on War and Peace, TH von Laue - History and Theory, 1998

• "This essay argues Thucydides theory of hegemonic war constitutes one of the central organizing ideas for the study of international relations" The Theory of Hegemonic War, Robert Gilpin, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 1988. --A.Garnet 15:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A. Garnet thanks. I once again propose A.Garnet's text as a compromise. NN 15:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Already answered. Miskin 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with you, NN, is that you want a win-0 situation here in your favor. This is your mistake; you think that you possess the absolute truth and everybody else here is wrong. Even if you see that a considerable number of editors here insist on the inclusion of the word "superpowr", you stand firm in you opinion (which would be laudable under different circumstances) and you believe that you will "overpower" them. It is you right to act as you wish, but I reassure you that these tactics of your will lead nowhere. Even in issues where you opinion could be heard (such as the Persia issue), your stance leads to the opposite results and to the disappearance of any prospect of compromise here.--Yannismarou 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And Garnet, yes Kagan speaks about a "hegemony", but Cartledge also uses the term "superpower"; and other writers as well. Hegemony refers to the situation in Greece. "Superpower" has broader world dimensions, and these dimensions are tried to be exposed by the editors of this article who chose to use the word "superpower", that Sparta's power had a broader impact beyond the boarders of the Greek world. I'm afraid Garnet's proposal is not a copromise in the eyes of many involved editors here; it is regarded by them as the imposition of NN's proposal on them.--Yannismarou 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, you can continue your endless discussions as long as you wish. For my part, I'm willing to implement any compromise you reach; and as far as Persia is concerned, I wait for a counter-proposal, otherwise I'll regard my wording as acceptable and I'll edit it.--Yannismarou 15:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This really does not make sense Yannis. Sparta's power did not have broader impacts beyond the Greek world as the term superpower would suggest, which is why stating it was a hegemonic power within the Greek world is both verifiable and accurate. Sparta certainly did not threaten Persia at the end of the Peloponnesian war, and could not have won it wihout Persia, so again I dont understand what these "broader impacts" are which warrant the use of the term superpower. The only reason I took part in this discussion is because this is one area of classical Greek history I am familiar with, so I certainly am not here to "impose" NN's proposal on you lot (which again I dont understand since it was my own proposal). --A.Garnet 15:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that this is what you tried to do. I just said that this is how your proposal will be regarded by certain editors here who go for "superpower".--Yannismarou 15:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I would really like an answer from Miskin, it seemed he opposed my original proposal on the basis of no sources, now that I have provided sources is this not an acceptable compromise? --A.Garnet 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

May I counter-propose this sentence, and have your reactions: ""Following its defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta became the hegemonic power of classical Greece, possessing one of the world's most powerful armies and effectively confronting the Persian empire in various occasions". I start from Garnet's proposal, and I also stress the fact that Sparta had one of the most poerful armied of the era, which is not something inaccurate I think.--Yannismarou 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A. Garnet, no offence, but from what you say it is evident that you're not familiar enough with the topic. Sparta invaded Persian land and Persia didn't even attempt to face her in battle. She only applied diplomacy in order to strengthen the Greek allied states who were already at war against Sparta. This is wikipedia forbids original research and lets the experts (references) do the job. Don't be wasting your time on original research, if you want to make a point just cite a source. What do you care about this topic anyway? Does it have to do with the fact that Domitius is involved here? Neither you nor Nayan nor any of the people who want to make decisions on the article had ever participated in its construction. And you have both shown imperfect knowledge on the topic, especially Nayan. Miskin 16:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ "Athens and Sparta" by Anton Powell (p. 228)

• Unassessed Greek articles
• Unknown-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• B-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
• Top-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
• All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages