This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brandmeister (old) (talk | contribs) at 20:03, 22 January 2010 (→Result again: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:03, 22 January 2010 by Brandmeister (old) (talk | contribs) (→Result again: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greco-Persian Wars article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | Greco-Persian Wars has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
 Archives | ||
| ||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greco-Persian Wars article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
The result
It is stated that "Result: Greek victory". Please explain this. Twice invasion of greece by persians ,..., and then suddenly the result... please explain me this term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.70.24.167 (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
- The Persian advance was ultimately repelled. Just because someone invades multiple times doesn't mean they end up victorious. See e.g. Battle of Plataea das 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I changed "repelled Persian advance" to "advancess" because there were multiple as it clearly states below, I hope this isn't a problem and if so please notify me. Also by definition to repel an army military you would have had to defeated them or then they would continued forward. In the basic understanding of this, the Persians invaded several times, were repelled all these times and never conquered Greece, wouldn't this be considered a Greek victory.
- The French in WW1 repelled the German armies although never invading and conquering Germany but we say the French were victorious. When Napoleon invaded Russia and was repelled we say it was a Russian victory although Russia just repelled Napoleon. When the British repelled the Spanish Armada we say its a British victory. In conclusion it is basic military sense to say "Greek victory" because it repeatedly repelled Persian advances. Also, if the cause of the war and Persian motive was "Persian expansion" and in fact by the peace treaty there was Persian withdrawal/weakening then it would again make sense for Greek victory. It seems like there is an effort to weasel out a "victory" in this article. - Patman2648 05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- If we take 500 BC as the beginning of the war and the peace of Kallias as the end then we do have a Greek victory, Persia shrunk somewhat. On the other hand if we take Croesus' reign as the beginning we can claim stalemate or Persian victory since the Persians at the end of the war controlled Cyprus, which they did not do so earlier. In most books I read this conflict is a Greek victory but not a decisive greek victory. Ikokki 08:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the result section, still keeping the stalemate to be discusse, but removing refernces to cities being invaded, etc. In the end Greece (as a whole) gained territories while Persia lost them, so I guess it qualifies as Greek Victory. Uirauna (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I also reverted you edit and call it vandalism. Before editing please ask here and wait for answer.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was not vandalism, I just tried to keep the result simple, showing only the changes of land ownership by Greece and Persia, instead of having a 10 line information that mentions events that happened during the war, but had no effect on its outcome. Burning a city is not a result of the war, is part of it, so it should not be mentioned. If we follow your reasoning, we should mention every battle and city burned. If you look at other war templates, it only has a brief description, such as Roman–Syrian War, Third Macedonian War, Battle of Lake Regillus, Samnite Wars, Latin War, Roman–Parthian Wars, Roman–Persian Wars (if you need more examples, I can show them). So, my suggestion is, keep "Result: Stalemate", and add "Territorial Changes: Persia loses control over the western coast of Asia Minor but keeps Cyprus and Egypt", this way we keep it simple, without bloating the article. What do you think? If you dont agree, please make a suggestion for the territorial changes so we can reach an agreement. And other editors, please say what you think. Uirauna (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you agree?? Uirauna (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I possible even wrote that part of the article.
- I modified it. That Athens and Eretria were razed is significant because this was the Persian objective of the wars right from the start. All other destruction is just non-noteable. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Wandalstouring, how about we put it under "Territorial Changes"? Uirauna (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the stalemate result seems not quite clear to me as I've read quite the opposite. Many sources, including Britannica and Hutchinson Encyclopedia, point to Greek victory even if the Peace of Callias is questioned. This is confirmed by secondary source on Herodotus, The Cambridge companion to Herodotus. Brandt 11:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Wandalstouring, how about we put it under "Territorial Changes"? Uirauna (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Victory does not mean conquest but victorious conclusion of one's ends. If one side is defending and another ine attacking, then if the attacker is repelled victory is awarded to the defender. It can be decisive, marginal but still a victory. Thus, there is no other way to describe the outcome of the Persian Wars (both of them) of classical Greece than a Greek victory. "Stalemate" is really a funny word to use here and militarily wrong. Should you wish to describe other campaigns of the Persians against Greek states (such as the Ionian cities, Cyprus and Macedonia), a Persian victory would of course be declared, BUT if talking about the 1st and 2nd Persian Wars, as are the Persian invasions ending in Marathon and Plataeai respectively, then the only outcome can be "Greek victory". GK1973 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Summary Style
This article seems seriously unwieldy to me. There is far too much specific information about some of the battles, which would be better covered in the articles for the battles themselves. The enormous discussion of numbers doesn't belong here, and again, should accompany the articles of the battles, or perhaps should be placed in specific articles on the different campaigns.
I propose that this article be reduced in size, simplified and cleaned-up, as per WP:SS, with new articles split off to cover the major campaigns. These campaign articles will be a suitable place for discussion of numbers for each campaign, and be a more suitable place to discuss in-depth the events of each campaign.
In the Greco-Persian Wars campaign box, there are also some battles with no wikipedia article (presumably since very little is known about them). These can also be described within the new campaign-specific articles, thus avoiding producing a series of new stub articles; the major battles will of course retain their main articles.
If no-one onjects to this, I will proceed with this plan shortly. Cheers MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK. However, you should limit yourself to moving content first, no deletions. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely, I will set up the new articles first; if people are happy with them, then this article can be pruned back as necessary.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
New title
the current title greco-persian wars is a term which does not reflect 1. the origin of the wars, 2. the name used by others. also 1. greek themselves, e.g. herodotus in his book uses "persian wars" and the article says Herodotus is the main source for this conflict (Bust at the Stoa of Attalus), and 2. many of the history books published recently use the term "persian wars". e.g many times in cambridge history of greek and roman warfare. so what about moving the page to persian wars? we can have greco-persian wars redirected to that (but not vise versa). --Xashaiar (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- This move needs to be backed up by more sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- how many sources are needed? I will list them here.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this page used to be called Persian Wars, but was moved because there are several wars that might be called "Persian". GPW is far less ambiguous than just "Persian Wars". Also, you need consensus from other editors that the move should go ahead, not just a list of sources. There are plenty of books which call these conflicts the "Greco-Persian Wars". MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well then why not Perso-Greek wars?--Xashaiar (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Because it's WP:OR and therefore forbidden unless you provide sources calling it that way. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- what OR? the following books call it perso-greek wars and the books call it persian-greek wars. So maybe Persian-Greek wars (=perso-greek wars) are acceptable.--Xashaiar (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- On English-language Misplaced Pages, the article titles have to reflect what most English speakers would recognise. On that basis, it's either Persian Wars (which I admit a lot of sources do call it) or Greco-Persian Wars. I favour Greco-Persian Wars because it is less ambiguous. I could be persuaded otherwise, if the consensus is for change. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- we should either call it Persian and Greek wars or again persian wars.--Xashaiar (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Persian and Greek Wars" sounds good. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are books that call it "Persian Greek wars", but the number of books that call it "greco-persian wars" is overwhelmingly larger (639 on google book search, against 100), I think we should keep it the way it is, unless there is a real reason to change it, or a vote is called. Uirauna (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Those are both large numbers. Which materials are more academic? --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Apart from academic book the history books by Ancient Greek works (I gave link to it in my earlier comments) do not call these wars "Greco-Persian wars". Also this book with its few first pages available here (page 7) explains this.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please read WP:Naming. There are clear rules for chosing an article name and so far none has made a valid argument against the current title. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Apart from academic book the history books by Ancient Greek works (I gave link to it in my earlier comments) do not call these wars "Greco-Persian wars". Also this book with its few first pages available here (page 7) explains this.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Those are both large numbers. Which materials are more academic? --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are books that call it "Persian Greek wars", but the number of books that call it "greco-persian wars" is overwhelmingly larger (639 on google book search, against 100), I think we should keep it the way it is, unless there is a real reason to change it, or a vote is called. Uirauna (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Persian and Greek Wars" sounds good. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- we should either call it Persian and Greek wars or again persian wars.--Xashaiar (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- On English-language Misplaced Pages, the article titles have to reflect what most English speakers would recognise. On that basis, it's either Persian Wars (which I admit a lot of sources do call it) or Greco-Persian Wars. I favour Greco-Persian Wars because it is less ambiguous. I could be persuaded otherwise, if the consensus is for change. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- what OR? the following books call it perso-greek wars and the books call it persian-greek wars. So maybe Persian-Greek wars (=perso-greek wars) are acceptable.--Xashaiar (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Because it's WP:OR and therefore forbidden unless you provide sources calling it that way. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well then why not Perso-Greek wars?--Xashaiar (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this page used to be called Persian Wars, but was moved because there are several wars that might be called "Persian". GPW is far less ambiguous than just "Persian Wars". Also, you need consensus from other editors that the move should go ahead, not just a list of sources. There are plenty of books which call these conflicts the "Greco-Persian Wars". MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- (Moving back over this side) Google books is not a reliable academic source. You can't simply google a phrase and say "This appears in more books, therefore it should be the title". The only appropriate way to decide on the title for this article is to ask what the English-language (this being the English language wikipedia) scholars who work on these wars call them. Of the books specifically written about these wars in the last century
- Hignett (1963) calls them the "Persian Wars"
- Green (1970) calls them the "Greco-Persian Wars"
- Burn (1984) calls them the "Persian Wars"
- Lazenby (1993) calls them the "Persian Wars"
- De Souza (2003) calls them the "Greek & Persian Wars"
- Holland (2005) calls them the "Greco-Persian Wars"
- Perso-Greek Wars and Persian-Greek Wars are not used, and should not be considered. As far as I can see, the only options are the current title or "Persian Wars". But, as has already been pointed out, Persian Wars is ambiguous, and presents the wars from a Greek point of view. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- And who told you to pick the worst sources up? You seem to have a bit of problem in understanding the meaning of sources (RS & V) and keeping (NPOV). Any term like "greco-Persian wars" is from european point of view therefore should be replaced by neutral ones. This is explained in the link I posted here. If you read a bit from Misplaced Pages help pages you see that a NPOV should be follwed no matter how well sourced are the POV's. Is that clear or should I use simlper language? --Xashaiar (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ahhh, so the mask slips and reveals you as a POV pusher. You have been outvoted and you have little evidence to support your claims, so you resort to insulting me. Well, now I'm convinced by your arguments! Please explain to me:
- a) In what way Greco-Persian Wars is POV?
- b) In what way Persian-Greek Wars would be a more neutral POV?!?
- c) Which sources you would like me to use? Am I only allowed to use sources that support your POV??
- And please, use as "simlper" language as you like. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am surprised by your questions. Did you read my previous comments? I am tired of repeating. I gave my reasoning and my sources. They all all academic or else Greek-fictional (the only sources used). --Xashaiar (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Read WP:Naming and WP:Reliable sources and use it for your argumentation. Anything else isn't valid and can be completely disregarded like User:Xashaiar's statement above. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
amazing! some people will find ethnic pride even in the naming of wiki articles: "not greco-persian, perso-greek or persian. 85.74.233.181 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- yes even more interesting is the similarity between the edits/edit summary of User:85.74.233.181 and someone else (a newcomer anyway)!--Xashaiar (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you making WP:PUPPET accusations Xashaiar? If you are, against who and based on what evidence? If not keep your comments to yourself and behave. This is not a forum. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- yes even more interesting is the similarity between the edits/edit summary of User:85.74.233.181 and someone else (a newcomer anyway)!--Xashaiar (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Recent edit
I would like to revert this edit. The info "The Persian Empire successfully punishes by destruction the poleis Eretria and Athens." as well as "result=Stalemate" were sourced and quite well-known statements. It suddenly changed to something unpopular. The official end also was by a "peace treaty". Any objection? The point on territory seems to me unjustified, as subjugating Macedon/Ionia was itself the result of parts of "Greco-Persian Wars", so loosing it again in later conflicts in the same GPW would be called "Stalemate". --Xashaiar (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I realize that there has been much debate as to the content of the infobox, and I am not seeking to cause any antagonism. In response to your four points, I would say:
- "The Persian Empire successfully punishes by destruction the poleis Eretria and Athens." — whilst this is true, it was only one incident in a very long conflict. I don't think the infobox should mention specific events in the war - if the reader wants to know what happened, they can actually read the article. There's no point in trying to list all the events of the war (I did actually try this, and it made the infobox look ridiculous).
- Stalemate — I would be prepared to concede this point. I think that the loss of Ionia makes this not a stalemate, but the way the conflict petered out is itself more suggestive of a stalemate.
- Treaty — this should definitely not be mentioned in the infobox, since both modern and ancient opinion are divided on whether it was real (this is now discussed further in the article). To present it in the infobox makes it look like a fact, when it is not. Besides which, the terms of the alleged treaty would undermine your suggestion that it was a stalemate, since they are harsh on Persia.
- Territory — I didn't mention Macedon. I agree that the gain and loss of Macedon would be a stalemate. However, Thrace was part of the Persian empire from 513 BC, and was no longer part after 450 BC; similarly, Ionia was part of the Persian empire from ca. 550 BC, and was no longer part after 450 BC. Persia thus lost control of these regions during the conflict. That is why I don't think this conflict was a stalemate, but as I said above, I'm prepared to concede this point.
- In short, I will change the result to stalemate, but leave the rest as it is. I hope you will find this formulation acceptable, based on my reasoning. If not, I am happy to discuss further. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm late to this party, but I also think "stalemate" is off the mark. Look at the perspective of the Persian Empire's goals: to absorb not only the Ionian Greek city-states, but those in the Aegean and on the mainland, as well. They failed. Persia's only real victory came in Egypt in 454. Ifnkovhg (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- As far as "Xexes" is concerned, he did what he really wanted. nothing more, nothing less.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Christ. Another true believer. You're patently wrong. Xerxes wanted to establish satrapies throughout Greece and collect tribute. He failed. They did sack Athens. Congratulations on that. But Xerxes got spanked. Ifnkovhg (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Depends who is saying what. Xerxes himself stated and in his swearword he said "I am going to punish them". Nothing like adding an extra satrap to Achaemenid as the empire had already reached the exact borders Darius wanted. I will never believe that Achaemenids ever wanted to expand further.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm late to this party, but I also think "stalemate" is off the mark. Look at the perspective of the Persian Empire's goals: to absorb not only the Ionian Greek city-states, but those in the Aegean and on the mainland, as well. They failed. Persia's only real victory came in Egypt in 454. Ifnkovhg (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Should we attempt to draw a conclusion as to the outcome of any ONE GrecoPersian war, our task would be easy. Yet, even mentioning a final outcome is absurd when we are talking about the totality of any war between the Persians and the Greeks. Of course the Persians successfully subjugated Ionia and Macedon for decades, even more than a century. They subjugated Cyprus for even longer as well as countless Greek cities in Pontus, Ciicia, Lydia, Mysia etc. Of course the Greeks successfully beat both massive attempts of the Achaemenids to subjugate Greece (as a geographical entity) and of course Alexander destroyed the Empire. It all boils down to what we want to include in this article. If this article is about all Greco-Persian wars then no outcome should be given. If it is only about the 2 Persian Wars then Greek victory is the only acceptable outcome. So, we have to decide on the focus. According to this decision, more info should be given on the agreed conflicts. As to Xerxes' goals, these were clearly the subjugation of mainland Greece, as is adequately stated by all historians who wrote about the matter. His goal was as much to punish the Greeks as was Alexander's goal some time later... Alexander conquered lands as Xerxes demanded (earth and water) before him. It is absurd to claim that his expedition to Greece was successful because he sacked Athens... So, choose what this article is about and then write the appropriate outcome or none at all! GK1973 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please, be a bit more careful with your statements. There were several Persian kings launching campaigns. Did they all have the same scope? Did they all have one defined scope from the start. Do we have any other sources than Greek aristocrats? How far were these Greek sources able to reflect Persian motives? Did you find any scholarly work about the Greco-Persian Wars that includes Alexander as part of the struggle? Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Sources
I've considered reviewing this article for GA-class several times. I found the article performing well in prose and neutrality. As a person not very knowledgeable on this period of history, I found that the article was comprehensive and broad enough. However, I felt uncomfortable about was the article's references. Being a rookie reviewer, I didn't know how to discuss this issue, and decided against starting a review.
Nevertheless, and seeing that someone has opted to be the article reviewer, I've decided to state my concerns. Aren't sources like those of Herodotus, Thucydides, and others, viewed by Misplaced Pages as primary sources under WP:RS? The Sources section explains that these historians are held as reliable by modern scholars, but it is a policy in this encyclopaedia that secondary sources are preferred over primary ones. It's the opposite here, as the majority of the citations use primary sources, particularly Herodotus. Why is that so? I'm sure secondary sources would be of greater benefit to the article. At any rate, even if these primary sources are not a problem for the article to reach GA-class, it will probably be so if this article is to make it to FA-class. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm the reviewer and I will check whether the primary sources are taken at face value or whether they are balanced with secondary works. I'm one of the guys who believes it's a good idea to provide references to the primary sources all secondary works use. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Authors of secondary sources are (mostly) academics and scholars capable of handling primary sources. We're not professionals, which is why these wikipedia policies exist. Secondary works are best for wikipedia because they allow us to include analysis in articles without making original research, and because they relieve us of the need of evaluating the neutrality and reliability of primary sources.
- Evidently, the primary sources are not taken at face-value; the opening section of the article contains considerable background information on Herodotus, Thucydides and others, and their reputation among modern scholars. I still think however that this article would make far better use of secondary sources. On the other hand, it would be a good idea if the references to primary sources are supported by secondary sources. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- As the person who included a lot of those references, I should mention my justification here. I have used primary sources only when they are essentially unchallengeable (I hope, it was my intention anyway...). So if the article says "Herodotus says that blah blah blah", the reference is to the primary source; it is incontestable that Herodotus does say it, regardless of whether it is true or not. Note that most of the citations directly link to online copies, so that the reader can check whether Herodotus does in fact say what I have claimed!
- Where there is any kind of discussion, interpretation, alternative views etc. etc., I used secondary sources. So a typical sentence might be "Herodotus says this (ref to herodotus); modern historians generally agree this was the case (ref to secondary sources). The article might need more secondary sources, but I would argue that it doesn't need less primary sources! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've just noticed that all the Perseus links are dead. This is very annoying indeed - they were still valid when I submitted the article. I will gradually fix them, but it will take ages... Grrrrr. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, in spite of the source issues, this article deserves GA status. Peltimikko (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Greco-Persian Wars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC) and Wandalstouring (talk)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- References needed:
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (references):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments from Nikkimaria
Most of the following comments deal with prose/MOS issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- this tool finds several disambiguation links and double redirects.
- Ref 7 is a dead link
Done. Removed, it wasn't particularly important anyway.
- Should be consistent in calling the opponents of the Greeks either the "Persian Empire" or the "Achaemenid Empire"
- The problem here is that the formal name is 'Achaemenid Empire', but 'Achaemenids' would refer to the family, not the people, who were 'Persians' (at least theoretically). It is therefore necessary to switch between the two as appropriate. But I can certainly remove references to the 'Persian Empire'.
- Caption for Battle of Salamis picture?
- Done. Whoops. Added one.
- What do the symbols next to certain commanders in the infobox represent?
- That they were killed in action - this is pretty standard in military history infoboxes.
- Section headings should not start with "The" (The Hellenic Alliance -> Hellenic Alliance). They should also not use characters like "&". Under Bibliography, only the first letter of each subheading should be capitalized
- Done
- "See also" is meant to be for links that are not included in the main article text
- Done
- Caption of infobox picture is unclear - do you mean "on" instead of "of"?
- Done
- Should consistently use either American or British spelling
- Done I think
- Avoid using redundant words: "many", "any", "some", "all" are often not required and may interrupt the flow of the passage
- Done At least where they disrupted the flow.
- Should avoid using personal pronouns like "we"
- Comma not needed in first sentence
- Done Removed.
- Try to maintain a strict encyclopedic tone at all times - avoid colloquialisms, conversational language, WP:WTA, etc.
- Done Amended inappropriate passages
- Should avoid wikilinking the same term more than once or twice
- Done
- The use of passive voice should be minimized
- This use of the passive is not in any sense incorrect. It is purely a choice issue. It certainly shouldn't prevent this article becoming a GA.
- Some problems with inclusion/lack of commas - commas are usually included at natural breaks in the sentence, and comma use in this article should be checked
- Done Sorted.
- Words like "despatched" and "whilst" are often considered to be deprecated - consider "dispatched" and "while"
- Done Changed.
- Check use of "that" versus "which" - grammar issue
- Done Changed as appropriate; though note that it is not incorrect to use 'which' for 'that'; this is, again, a personal choice.
- Missing/misusing hyphens for some terms, for example "city states" -> "city-states".
- Done I think.
- I would suggest reading through the article out loud looking for potential problems with clarity and flow - there are several instances of poorly worded phrases and unclear sentences. This is not strictly a grammar check (although that would help), but deals with word order and word choice
- Done
- The article also needs some copy-editing for grammar - trying running it through a MS Word grammar & style check, or try to recruit a "grammar Nazi"
- Done I think.
- "With the completion of the pacification of Ionia, the Persians began planning their next moves; to..." - should use a colon instead of a semi-colon here
- Done
- A couple errors in spelling and choice of homophones (uses "there" when it should be "their", "sacrificied", etc)
- Done
- The link under "Permission" for the Persian Empire 490 BC image is dead. The links for the Battle of Marathon diagram are also dead, and the licensing indicates that a credit line is required. Battle of Thermopylae - second link is dead. Battle of Salamis - link is dead.
- Done Sorted these out.
Comments from Wandalstouring
- Siege of Sestos in the first chapter links back to this article. Needs to link to more specific information.
- Done
- The minor authors merit a tad more information on bias and reliability.
- I agree - to be done.
- Done
- I agree - to be done.
- There are too many sections solely referenced with primary sources. I support refering to primary sources, but you must also point out which secondary source you use for your statements. For example the story about the Ionian migration to Asia Minor is contested, there are also source for a Ionian migration to Greece and new evidence is unearthed for migrations during the Bronze Age and not just during the Dark Age.
- I agree in general about sections referenced only with primary sources.
- For this "movement" in the dark ages I want more than Herodot as a source. Any such immigration theory must have an accepted archeological basis or it's nonsense. Also this idea about the temple for Ionian cities needs some backup other than Herodot. there are more primary and secondary works on the topic.
- Done I have added some secondary sources to this, and changed the it to a "Herodotus suggests..." type of paragraph. I don't think any further detail is needed for this article. Obviously, if you want to add any, then that's fine; you probably have better access to information than me on this one.
- For this "movement" in the dark ages I want more than Herodot as a source. Any such immigration theory must have an accepted archeological basis or it's nonsense. Also this idea about the temple for Ionian cities needs some backup other than Herodot. there are more primary and secondary works on the topic.
- I agree in general about sections referenced only with primary sources.
- Military equipment and tactics merit mention because the Greek victory is mainly attributed to them while the Persians were definetly able to conquer Greek Asia Minor. The Persian system of combining archers and spearmen (sparabara) reminds me of Assyrian warfare with the addition of better cavalry, at least the Assyrians were quite influential for the military development in the region of the Persian Empire. For the Greeks you have during this time the switch to the hoplite from looser formations and the introduction of the trireme instead of the double-deck penteconters. There's also a difference between Phoenician and Greek triremes that should briefly be highlighted.
- This is clearly beyond the scope of the article. This is a summary style article; to discuss these kind of details is just not necessary. Details of tactics and military units etc. can be included in the sub-articles (like we did in Second Persian invasion of Greece, but do not make sense in a primarily narrative article like this.
- I don't think it's beyond the scope if you write briefly that the Greeks had bodyarmour that was arrowproof, heavy shields and attacked in phalanxes with longer spears than the Persians. The Persians had a large force of drafted soldiers from all over their Empire who fought with bows, shorter spears, wicker shields and only few had bodyarmour. Thus the fighting was very much a Greek affair on land and at sea where the Greek marines played an important role. You get an extra bonus if you point out how recent the introduction of these weapons in Greece was. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Alright then, if there are bonus points on offer, I'll give it a go...
- Done
- The Greek light armed are missing, they were half the army. Just mention them once. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Added the Greek light troops, and the Sparabara, as requested.
- The Greek light armed are missing, they were half the army. Just mention them once. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Alright then, if there are bonus points on offer, I'll give it a go...
- I don't think it's beyond the scope if you write briefly that the Greeks had bodyarmour that was arrowproof, heavy shields and attacked in phalanxes with longer spears than the Persians. The Persians had a large force of drafted soldiers from all over their Empire who fought with bows, shorter spears, wicker shields and only few had bodyarmour. Thus the fighting was very much a Greek affair on land and at sea where the Greek marines played an important role. You get an extra bonus if you point out how recent the introduction of these weapons in Greece was. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is clearly beyond the scope of the article. This is a summary style article; to discuss these kind of details is just not necessary. Details of tactics and military units etc. can be included in the sub-articles (like we did in Second Persian invasion of Greece, but do not make sense in a primarily narrative article like this.
- the "bubbling cauldron of discontent" needs to be more balanced. There are no reports that the Ionians revolted during the regime change from Cyrus's dynasty to Darius's dynasty, unlike elsewhere in the empire.
- Agreed - I will look into it.
- Done
- Agreed - I will look into it.
- way too much detail about Miltiades, Themistokles and Aristides. Cut that paragraph and provide only a summary of the important facts for this war. Like for the Persians you left out most of their politics do the same for the Greeks.
- Agreed - I have already cut this a bit, and will look to remove more.
- Done
- Agreed - I have already cut this a bit, and will look to remove more.
- You cite Holland too much. That Themistocles wanted a GREEK navy, not an Athenian is not supported by the primary sources and should be backed up by another historian. Also the statement that for the Greeks to survive things were needed is questionable. There were Greeks living in the Persian Empire. You could argue for the independence of Athens some things were needed, but that he thought national and not in political units needs more historians agreeing on this.
- Agree about citing Holland too much (but see below). Regarding this paragraph, I will look into modifying it away from Holland's interpretation.
- Done
- Agree about citing Holland too much (but see below). Regarding this paragraph, I will look into modifying it away from Holland's interpretation.
- the stories connected with the battle of Marathon can be moved to the article about that battle, they totally distract in the overview of the war.
- Agreed, and will look at. However, I think a brief mention of the Marathon race is called for, since that is what Marathon is now most famous for.
- Done
- Agreed, and will look at. However, I think a brief mention of the Marathon race is called for, since that is what Marathon is now most famous for.
- "In what Holland characterises as, in essence, the world's first referendum," is a questionable claim. Does Holland write "this was the world's first referendum" or is this your summary? If he doesn't write it remove this claim and just state it's a referendum because we have no idea who in this world held a referendum and whether it was before or after this event.
- Holland does claim exactly this. I make no such claim. The exact text is:"but the ostracism of 482 BC was, in effect, the first referendum in history".
- the construction of ships needs more backup for the interpretation than just Holland writing a general history and a primary historian. Was it only because of the Persians or was it voted for by the poor, the majority of the voters, who wanted to earn money rowing warships?
- Done
- The section about Sparta needs more than one historian for the interpretation. Do all historians agree that the Persians let this message pass because the expected it to fulfill their purpose or was it a backdoor to go back to Sparta in case something went wrong with the Persians?
- Done I've cleaned this up; it seems this anecdote is probably an insertion into Herodotus anyway.
- "On the afternoon of the Battle of Plataea, Herodotus tells us that rumour of the Greek victory reached the Allied navy," is doubted very much by Lazenby. Please use secondary sources to present information critically.
- I will add a note that Herodotus's view is generally regarded with skepticism.
- Done + Citation
- I will add a note that Herodotus's view is generally regarded with skepticism.
- more to come...
Wandalstouring (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Wandalstouring, I am very glad that you are back reviewing articles. You never let me get away with lazy writing! You are, of course, mostly right about all of the above points. There are some general points I want to make though.
- Firstly, please remember that this is a summary style article WP:SS. If some aspects are passed over with little detail, then that is deliberate. We cannot discuss everything to do with the Greco-Persian Wars here.
- Secondly, this article was created mainly by condensing the various individual articles into as small a space as possible. This does not excuse the problems with referencing in much of the article, but I hope it explains it. So for instance, a statement in the article Battle of Thermopylae that read: "Herodotus says X happened. Modern historians think that Y." has generally been condensed to "X happened.". This is why there are so many passages that only use primary sources; I did not deliberately set out to do it this way. However, I agree that there are points were a secondary source should be used to back this up. This is also why there are so many references to Holland; in the articles I re-wrote early on, I used Holland a lot (as you know). When I condensed those articles, the references to Holland also became condensed; again, I did not set out to deliberately include lots of Holland references. However, I am not going to spend my time replacing these references, if they do represent a general consensus amongst historians. I am of course happy to replace/add new references where Holland is presenting one of his non-representative views.
- Dear Wandalstouring, I am very glad that you are back reviewing articles. You never let me get away with lazy writing! You are, of course, mostly right about all of the above points. There are some general points I want to make though.
- I have addressed your specific comments above. Many thanks for a thorough review so far. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- What's the status on the review from both sides? Nice progress so far, but since this is the oldest GAN in the backlog hopefully things could be sped up a bit :) Wizardman 17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- On hold. Replied on talk page. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am working on it. Apologies for the slow progress, but real life calls! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- On hold. Replied on talk page. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Result again
Judging by the article's history, there is a consensus on Greek defensive victory since AT LEAST December 2009. In addition to multiply sources here is what Encarta 2003 writes in the relevant article: The outcome of the wars shifted the balance of power in the eastern Mediterranean from the Persians to the Greeks... The Persians were never again able to threaten another invasion. The Greeks moved to the offensive and over the next decades liberated the islands of the Aegean and large areas along the western and northern coasts from Persian control. The most important direct result of the wars was to establish Athens as the dominant Greek naval power. We don't need a new lame edit war on that. Brand 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages good articles
- History good articles
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Classical warfare articles
- Classical warfare task force articles
- Failed requests for military history A-Class review
- B-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
- Top-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
- All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
- B-Class Greek articles
- Top-importance Greek articles
- WikiProject Greece general articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages
- B-Class Iran articles
- Unknown-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles