Talk:Pericles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old, unsectioned comments

this article is severely lacking in content, if i weren't writing a paper for college i would do sometihing about it.

i think perhaps mentioning his funeral oration might be a good idea.

yeah i think it skates over detail, especially his role in the peloponnesian war. i will edit it as soon as i can find the time.

WE NEED INFO ON THE FUNERAL SPEECH NOW!!!!!!!

thucidcles wrote a very interesting speech for pericles and it can be located on google somewhere but if anyone has any other background knowledge on pericles could they please let me know @ laurentangey@hotmail.com as i am conducting a seminar for my ancient history assignment for year 12 - thanks

Demos

In the second paragraph, the word demos has been misused. Its general meaning is 'the people', though in the sense used in democracy it refers only to citizens. All adult Athenian males were citizens. Pericles actually changed the rules so that citizens had to be entirely Athenian in origin. opponents of democracy argued that it gave power to the mob, but we should not accept this view as necessarily accurate. Lamename Cheesestring Rodriguez 12:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

it needs more on pericles' obsession of life....

Age of Pericles

In the article it states that the Age of Pericles is from 461-379 BC but other source(s) say that it is from 461 BC to 429 BC. So can anyone confirm or give a source for the 461-379 time period? This is one of the sites that gives the 461 to 429 BC time period; [1] or search 'Age of Pericles lasted from' on Google or see the discussion on the Age of Pericles article. If the source or reason doesn't come up soon I am going to change it to: 'The period from 461 BC to 429 BC is sometimes known as "The Age of Pericles" (Though this terminology can extend to all the way to 379 BC)' Pseudoanonymous 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the date most definitely ends at 429, when Pericles died of the plague, around the time when he was actually losing popular support (largely due to the miserable conditions inside Athens' walls during the start of the Peloponnesian War). See the discussion at [[2]].

Cimon

Someone with more knowledge about Cimon than myself needs to rewrite the Cimon paragraph. It's horribly written and makes little sense. In general, the article needs to be cleaned up. More names and dates also need to be added. Sorry, I would do it myself but I lack the knowledge of Pericles' life.

More Information Needed

If someone has the time, they should revist this article and take these sources as guides to rewriting this page:

[http://www.e-classics.com/pericles.htm]

[Pericles by Plutarch[3]]

and this [PBS special on Pericles[4]]

There should be more than enough information in these websites (and PBS special, if you have it or have seen it) that this article could be made into a much more informative article.

Italicization

Why is Pericles' name randomly italicized in some parts of the article, but not others?--128.239.222.142 16:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My intention was to italicize Pericles' name in all parts. If I have missed some of them and you don't like my "random" italics get in and make your corrections as you think best. We live in a democratic world ...--Yannismarou 17:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Any special reason? It doesn't seem that WP:MOS recommends that. This is the only article I've seen it on. Wikibofh_(talk) 20:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• First, I am almost sure this is not the only article with italics for the title of the article, when it appears inside the text (and if it is I feel flattered for my innovative originality!). Second, I strongly believe I abide by the rules, although I concede I did not search for this specific issue. Third, it was a choice of style I did while rewriting and enriching the article, thinking that it could ameliorate the way a reader approaches the text. Fourth, I donot think this is a big issue and I repeat I have no objection the italics to be reverted.--Yannismarou 09:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok, I say we remove them. If you have a strong preference, I'd recommend talking with the other editors over at WP:MOS to get it to be a standard. Thanks for the reply. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No objection. Start removing and, when I have the adequate time, I'll also check the text.--Yannismarou 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Epidemic

A question: Pericles is put in the category: deaths of bubonic plague. But, according to the most prominent modern researchers (See Plague of Athens and my references in Pericles), the epidemic was a typhus and not a plague. Hence, should we keep Pericles in a category, where he does not really belong? --Yannismarou 12:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Plague of Athens article says:

The disease has traditionally been considered an outbreak of the bubonic plague in its many forms, but re-considerations of the reported symptoms and epidemiology have led scholars to advance alternative explanations. These include typhus, smallpox, measles, and toxic shock syndrome. Others have suggested anthrax, tramped up from the soil by the thousands of stressed refugees or concentrated livestock held within the walls. Based upon descriptive comparisons with recent outbreaks in Africa, ebola has also been considered.

That being said, I agree that given the uncertainty, he should not be in the bubonic plague death category. I'll remove him. Thanks again. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing. It's less than uncertainty now. At the end of the Plague of Athens there is a reference to modern conferences, that promote the case of typhus. Vlachos and Gomme are certain that it was typhus. Happy we agree about the removal.--Yannismarou 14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Bust of Pericles, Old Museum, Berlin

I feel this is a better photo than the one currently at the article, but I leave a decision on whether to replace it to other editors. Adam 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I included your photo and replaced one of the previous photos. As a matter of fact I was looking for a photo of this bust in Berlin!--Yannismarou 10:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Efharisto. Adam 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This photo

File:Cholargus.JPG

This is described as a "contemporary" statue of Pericles. Contemporary with what? I don't think it an ancient statue. If it is a modern statue, it is of very limited relevance to the article, when we already have a number of ancient images of Pericles. Also the caption is very unclear and of dubious relevance. Adam 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a photo I took myself. It is a modern statue. And I decided to add it because it is located in the modern municipallity of Cholargos, theoritically the same deme from which Pericles was originated. I found the presence of this statue very interesting, because it indicates a continuity and a connection between the ancient and the modern world.. It also indicates the respect modern generations attribute to Pericles, being proud to declare that they come from the same deme (whether this belief is accurate or not). Anyway, this is my personal view the removal of the photo can be discussed.--Yannismarou 08:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Skill of oratory

I believe the "Skill of oratory" section would benefit a lot from citing Plato. In the Gorgias dialogue (455d and on), Gorgias actually uses Pericles as an example os how powerful oratory can be:

" Gorgias - Well, I will try, Socrates, to reveal to you clearly the whole power of rhetoric: and in fact you have correctly shown the way to it yourself. You know, I suppose, that these great arsenals and walls of Athens, and the construction of your harbors, are due to the advice of Themistocles, and in part to that of Pericles, not to your craftsmen.

Socrates - So we are told, Gorgias, of Themistocles; and as to Pericles, I heard him myself when he was advising us about the middle wall.

Gorgias - So whenever there is an election of such persons as you were referring to, Socrates, you see it is the orators who give the advice and get resolutions carried in these matters.

Socrates - That is just what surprises me, Gorgias, and has made me ask you all this time what in the world the power of rhetoric can be. For, viewed in this light, its greatness comes over me as something supernatural.

Gorgias - Ah yes, if you knew all, Socrates,--how it comprises in itself practically all powers at once! "

A few paragraphs below in the same book is the phrase by Socrates cited on the "Political leadership" section of the article: "As far as I know, Pericles made the Athenians slothfull, garrulous and avaricious, by starting the system of public fees". Well, Socrates didn't like rethoric, yet in the book all agree Pericles was a great orator.

I think all of this can be into the article, maybe the "Skill of oratory" section could say something about it and feature one of those blue boxes with the whole text above.

I'm sorry for any English mistakes, by the way.A.Z. 21:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I'll soon strive to materialize your suggestions, but I donot think I can feature one of those blue boxes with the whole text above, because the blue boxes include just sayings of Pericles himself or, at least, presented as sayings of Pericles. Thanks also for citing the exact number of the paragraph in Gorgias dialogue. If you fell confident of your English, you can make yourself your own edits and I'll check them then.--Yannismarou 10:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

I love the Greek numbered footnotes but am a bit confused by the use of στ for 6 shouldn't it be stigma (Ϛ) or digamma (Ϝ)? But maybe modern practice id different. Eluchil404 20:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, in modern Greek practice, στ stands for six. In fact, most Greek people nowadays wouldnt recognise stigma or digamma. Druworos 11:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

I have reviewed the article for GA nomination. And unfortunately I cannot pass it. Though, in a sort of a paradox, this is one of the most well-written articles, in terms of content coverage and style, I have seen on Wikipedia. The reason for failing though, is mostly due to the language non-conforming to Wikipedia's NPOV policies, which are of course part of the Good Article Criteria.

There really is only one thing which let this article down for me. And that's what has been pointed out in the FA nomination - neutral point of view. GA is not meant to be nearly as strict on the details, but I found some sections unacceptable.

• Political leadership section - this section is very POV. In fact it is almost nothing except Thucydides's POV. While it may be acceptable to quote people's descriptions and analysis of Pericles, it is not neutral at all to use one person's POV to characterise the man in an Encyclopedic entry. You're not putting in your own POV here, very true, but it is not so much different if you present only a one-sided view quoting one-sided POVs. This section needs to be re-written to be more neutral, and to be less of Thucydides. In fact when mentioning critics/admirers like this you should be saying something more like: "Thucydides was a great admirer of Pericles, in his writings he has called him... etc"
• Legacy section - same thing. According to K. Paparrigopoulos, Pericles was "the ideal type of the perfect statesman in ancient Greece".[71] Comparing the virtues of the most prominent Athenian statesmen, the Greek historian concludes that "Cimon was surely a better general; Themistocles might have been a better politician and Demosthenes a better orator, but Pericles was, at the same time a great general, statesman and orator".[71]... First of all who is Paparrigopoulos? And why is his oppinion on Pericles's legacy the only important one?
• Throughout the article you have your own commentary which is, depending on which way you look at it, either POV or original research. Both of which are against Wikipedia policy. Here are some examples:
  • If true, this deal constitutes a concession of Pericles that he was not a great strategist...
  • It is interesting to point out that...
  • His shrewd stance...
  • ...we must point out that Pericles' thinking was likely more political than military in nature.
  • He probably believed that...
  • ...his strategic genius remains questioned... (you say remains questioned, but you call it genius yourself - prescribing this POV to the reader)

In short - I think this article has too much emphasis on describing Pericles through POVs of individuals who have admired him.

This is not as major as the above problems, but you never mentioned how he died! You need to have a section about how/when/where he died, and some brief summary of the consequences of his death - who succeeded him, etc (and as far as I remember Athens was defeated by Sparta soon after).

Also a couple of recommendations (though these would not have stopped you from passing):

• in sections like the Pelopanesian War, I suggest you put in tags like: {{main|Peloponnesian War}} which would give:
  Main article: Peloponnesian War
  under the section heading. This would give interested readers an opportunity to go and read more on the given subject.
• make a See Also section to things like Greek History, and other related topics. I realise you removed one during your FA nomination because you were echoing the contents of the article. But it would still be great if you had one for things not linked to in your article specifically. Some possible examples: ancient greek history, ancient greek art/culture, ancient greek democracy, etc. (note I haven't checked whether these are articles, but there should be some along these lines)

Please don't take this as a discouragement, you have done a great job so far. I will look forward to your re-nomination for GA and eventually FA!--Konstable 13:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructions. I hope that some other editor (maybe Druworos) will be able to implement them. If I try to implement them, I'll contradict my beliefs (in terms of writing an article) and I'll undermine my own effort of implementation. For my part, I owe a big thanks to Druworos for all his contributions and initiatives the previous weeks. --Yannismarou 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You have done a good job really. But the style that you use is more of a style for a book, rather than for Wikipedia.--Konstable 14:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Citations 47 and 66 donot refer paqe. The mere reference of the book without pages is not adequate. Please add a page or I'll think removing them. --Yannismarou 14:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Konstable keeps adding interesting citations but without mentionning the exact page. I repeat that this is against FA rules. So, if we hope that this article will become one day featured, we must citate exact pages of the referenced bibliography.--Yannismarou 13:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry, I seemed to have missed the talk page (my watch list is very bloated right now). I will go back and fill them in when I can, shouldn't be too hard I still have immediate access to all the sources.--Konstable 13:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I am about to request a peer review. Let's see what people think of the new version.--Konstable 14:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it!--Yannismarou 07:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)