Talk:History of Sparta

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia'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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Pol430, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors , on 6 December 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

	Cities
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

History

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: n0obcoder (September 9, 2019), shitty_text.txt{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

"The city was something of a "tourist trap" for Roman elite to observe the "unusual" Spartan people. Following the disaster that the Roman Imperial Army suffered at the Battle of Adrianople, Spartan phalanxes met and defeated a force of raiding Visigoths in battle. That was the last noteworthy Spartan victory." /\ This I find HIGHLY dubious. How could the Spartans maintain their military tradition for 600 years under Roman rule? It makes no sense, even if they were kept as a living museum as suggested above. SOURCES, hombre, sources. D.E. Cottrell 06:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest the inclusion of something of the Deuterocanonical or Apocryphal First book of the Macabees, which records in its twelfth book a letter between the Jews and the Lacedemonians (Spartans) in which their brotherhood was announced - of the Spartan descent from Abraham, and a form of alliance between the two, acknowledged by both. Should this be recorded in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.27.52.149 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 21 February 2006.

I too would like to know about this last Spartan victory over visigoth raiders. I wouldn't say such a feat was impossible, the city may have maintained a few spartiate wannabees to please roman benefactors but we need source evidence. BV 23.2.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.12.222.85 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 23 February 2007.

Wikinfo:Cretan/Spartan connection FYI. (Deleted by Wikipedians on 6 Mar. 2006.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WHEELER (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 March 2006.

"Her military greatness and that of the states under her hegemony formed her sole claim to lead the Greek race: that she should truly represent it was impossible." This is pure opinion and conjecture and has no place anywhere but a discussion page. You are presenting your opinion as fact without even attempting to disguise it, but at the same time saying your work does not need verification because it is so obviously true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.83.104 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 February 2007.

"Yet, in spite of the heroic defence of Thermopylae by the Spartan king Leonidas, the glory of the decisive victory at Salamis fell in great measure to the Athenians, and their patriotism, self-sacrifice and energy contrasted strongly with the hesitation of the Spartans and the selfish policy which they advocated of defending the Peloponnese only."

OK this is just nonsense and is not supported by military historians or common sense. Without the defense of Thermopylae the Atheneians would have been overun and would not have been able to mount a naval campaign.

Actually, it's a fairly good summary of Herodotus. And there is no indication the Athenian evacuation was pressed for time. Thermopylae was heroic, but it only lasted a few days. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I seem to have stepped into a mini-war going on about this battle on all the pages refering to it because of the movie. Pages are being vandalized right and left

I'll wait until the hype dies down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.83.104 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 February 2007.

Removed some defacement of the '5th century' section. 64.81.160.29 12:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been BCE for about two years now. It is true that occasionally someone has tried to change it to BC. No one till now has pressed the point so to all intents and purposes it has been stable as BCE. If that were not so the The 5th century BCE section would not have been linked from the Peloponnesian War Since the 11th of August, however, anon user 206.174.79.86 has been constantly changing this page to BC. The argument that this page initially was BC doesn't hold water unless we accept the principle that the first author of the page has some level of ownership of the page. This is especially so given that this page started out as a scan from the 1911 Britannica -the author has presumably long ago had his obituary written. None the less user 206.174.79.86 has got the right to put the question of the Era on the table (though not to insist on overturning the current stable state as he is doing). I am curious as to why he is so concerned to change the era of the Sparta page. Every time this has been debated those convinced that BCE is the more NPOV form and those who have been convinced that the BC form is more NPOV have been about equal. A glance at the redirects to any BC/BCE date will show that currently the number of BC to BCE pages doesn't remotely reflect this balance of opinion. This is not a strong argument for changing pages that are currently BC to BCE but it is an argument against eliminating the few BCE pages that exist - unless the view is that BCE should be excluded completely from Wikipedia.Dejvid 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of Wikipedia should be consistent, and anything going against the grain like that should be elimenated. I believe that all BCE's on this website should be elimentated. Does Wikipedia not deserve to be completely in sync? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrgul66 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not religious at all so I'm neutral. Before Christ doesn't actually imply any belief that he is a savior just that he existed. The way it stands now the intro and first section are BC and the rest seems to be BCE. TBH I never even heard anything use BCE ever before coming to a wiki page that had it and never knew what it meant. If anything it's kind of insulting to history. I'm changing references to BCE to BC.--Papajohnin (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the

Old Moonraker (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The redirects were set up precisely to allow both era forms to coexist - hence having two forms does not create problems. Outside Wikipedia, the trend seems to be towards BCE especially in academic circles - but who knows. Until one form clearly wins out then Wikipedia should reflect the diversity. That BCE is under represented in Wikipedia is not an argument for changing pages like this - quite the reverse.Dejvid (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand you, you seem to be laboring under the clause that states whats inappropriate to change - which we are all in accordance with. Changing it to BCE would violate that clause as the page was written under BC. Also the WP:ERAS for any year regardless of linked from BC or BCE still works the same - as a matter of fact, linking BCE will still show BC under the wiki format box instead of BCE which the user clicked on.--Papajohnin (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently all the years are BC. I hope you are not using that as an argument in favor of eliminating BCE pages. The current situation is a compromize. The balance of opinion in wikipedia is about 50% between the two forms. That the year pages are all BC is one example of how overrepresented BC is. Be happy that your preferred form is used there and leav stable BCE pages be.Dejvid (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article started with BC and was changed without any debate or announcement towards the political correct BCE (such a change is against WP:ERA). Of course it has been stable at BCE because certain users (Dejvid and Old Moonraker) keep on changing it to BCE. Your statements of: "The balance of opinion in wikipedia is about 50% between the two forms. That the year pages are all BC is one example of how overrepresented BC is. Be happy that your preferred form is used there and leav stable BCE pages be." is quite honestly only your own opinion and no one if forced to agree with it. Any user who doesn't agree with the dating system in this article can propose a change towards BC/AD (the most popular dating system in the English language) and I suspect that he will a couple of votes (including my own). Flamarande (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bring my name into this: my last posting here was "Either form is acceptable". What isn't acceptable is internal inconsistency, with just one occurrence being changed; a

I wasn't commenting upon your post. I was commenting upon the history of the article (in which you and Dejvid quickly revert any change towards BC - please correct if I'm wrong here) and upon certain funny remarks in the edit summaries by certain users. Remember that this article started as BC/AD and was changed without following proper protocol. Such a sneaky change can be reverted. Flamarande (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a "sneaky" alteration [1], but as it was in 2005, and as the article has been more-or-less stable ever since, why is it being revisited now, please? --

Old Moonraker (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This page was originally from the Britanica of 1911. This might not be so obvious because when this page was created it was my lifting the history section of the Sparta page. However, beyond wikification, the changes it had acquired were extremely minor. That was still true when it was changed to BCE in July of 2005. At that time there was no policy that era changes required consensus or substantial reasons and so it was not an unreasonable thing to do. This is especially true as there is no indication that the creator of this page had made any active choice re era - it was essentially a cut and paste. In 2007 a user and I did find ourselves drifting into an edit war on this issue. However, when I took it to the talk page they did not reply - in effect conceding by default.

You are right to pick me up on "leav stable BCE pages be". That wording was unfortunate but there must be very few people who are never irritable on the internet. The point I was making, however, I still see as valid. The current BCE-BC compromise is rather slanted in favor of BC. It is only a point of view that 'the current year pages being all BC rather overrepresents BC'. That's true. Please explain why you think 100% BC is not an overrepresantation.

I am consistent in the view that bringing into question the current state of a page on the basis of a change that goes back to 2005 is unhelpful. Second Mithridatic War was created as BCE. That the status quo of that page is now BC is to me beyond question. Dejvid (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the edits of an anonymous user who changed all the "BCs" to "BCEs". I do not want to get caught up in this, and only reverted the edit due to its lack of necessity and rather arbitrary nature. Ensignricky

Made a lot of simple corrections, rephrasing and removing unclear/biasedlanguage. The second half of this entry seemed to have been written by a different person than the first, it was pretty shocking. Askahrc (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Ryan 3/6/2009[reply]

I'm a little uncertain what you mean here. There is far more criticism of Sparta in the final stages of the second Peloponesian war but that reflects the views of the historians I was using. The assessment that Sparta became arrogant once she realized she had the upper hand and that this led to an even greater arrogance once she attained supremacy is pretty widespread. Hence what at first seems a paradox - only short time after attaining the peak of her power she was reduced to a second rate power in the wake of Leuctra.

But thanks for the extensive rewrite. You have a preference for a more formal style than me but I'v long felt uncomfortable that this page reflects my style too much. In many cases your wording is a huge improvementDejvid (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this article is still being copy edited by the

• I have completed a full copy edit, apart from a clean up run through
  talk) 13:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just bad ass it is!  ;) TCO (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MEOW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.105.49.77 (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't too logical right now. I'm going to work a new org looking toward expansion. In the future, possibly Prehistory might be broken out. For example, the reforms of Lycurgus are not prehistory. We are hearing all about them and we don't hear about prehistory. It is PRE all historical references. A new topic is needed, legendary or proto-historic. Probably both are required.Dave (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I created a new organization arranged by centuries as that seemed to be the preferred basic organization of the previous editors. I moved in a lot of material from Sparta's history section, which has the same name. Following the usual technique, History of Sparta there only introduces it in this main article. That seems to work. This article is much longer but I notice that much of it has "main"s theoretically offloading material to other articles. They look like they have the same problem, two independent articles developed. I'm pretty sure I can cut this article down by offloading material that says it has a main to the main. Meanwhile I can get Sparta in some kind of comprehensible order. It seem to be falling into place. I notice in many places the English ain't too good. It need to be gone over. But, the organizations seem to be working out.Dave (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section is too judgemental. It wants to lard the facts with the negative opinions of the WP editor backed up by the negative opinions of Paul Cartledge. This gives the section the overtones of an essay. I dare say sometimes I have fallen into that error myself. I want to correct this essayism with more of the unvarnished truth in an objective style. Let the readers decide for themselves. We don't want to slant against the Spartans. Maybe they already slanted against themselves by their actions; that is up to the audience to decide. Further, the language is sometimes conversational rather than objective. Once I have sifted out those elements I may find the rest really belongs in the main article, which suffers from the same problems. I will evaluate then.Dave (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Though the details of how Sparta ruled Athens' former subjects is uncertain, it was certainly as dictatorial and exploitative as had been the rule of Athens. In general, the Spartan hegemony was exercised selfishly with little regard for the sensibilities either, of their allies or their new subjects.^[1]"

Make up your mind. Is it uncertain or certain? One thing certain is that this is not encyclopedic writing. You say Cartledge said that. If he did, we don't want his essay material, only his scholarship.Dave (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that most of the references are not complete references. The one that seems most obectionable is Cartiledge "Agisilaos." Nowhere is this book cited in this encyclopedia. That is because there is no such book. I believe the book is the one about Sparta in Crisis, which I cited in the biblio. This reference is everywhere. On the Spartan supremacy section, I tried out some text on the Internet and discovered it was taken word for word from the Britannica. We do warn the readers there, but the Cartiledge reference is tacked onto this! It isn't Cartiledge, it is someone named Yust, and the encyclopedia is not just 1911. Now, there are 3 editions of the Cartiledge book. Only one is snippet, the others can't be previewed. The page numbers on various snippet lookups don't look a thing like what we have. I can't see how any of these references are proper references. If we were going to use Britannica we should have referenced Britannica and if we were going to quote word for word we should have put in quotation marks. This is not proper form here. What I want to do is rewrite whatever Britannica sections I discover and put in properly cited references. Since I can't see Cartiledge they probably aren't going to be Cartiledge. I will try to keep the same structure. It will take a while to get all this done. Meanwhile take your pick of improper reference requests and plagiarism notifications and consider them on. If this sort of work is typical of these articles I will have to look at tham also.Dave (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He played Basketball for the Michigan State Spartans, has no actual ties to Greece or Sparta. He is 100% American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.68.93 (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]