User talk:Miskin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Miskin 11:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC) is trying to take a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia on April 23. Most likely, however, Miskin 11:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC) won't be able to keep away from Wikipedia for that long, and will probably be back a lot earlier while making some small edits every once in a while anyway.

Contents

[edit] 300

Thanks for helping to keep the film article clear of any original research. I was wondering, though, are you opposed to including experts' reviews of the film in terms of historical accuracy or lack thereof? Your talk page comments seemed to indicate that based on the film's lack of claim regarding any attempt for historical accuracy. Just wondering if you would be receptive to a review like the Apocalypto one I mentioned in response to the film's reliability. I'm not seeing that as a way to satisfy the dozens of editors who have vandalized or added their original research to this article to support their feelings for this film. I think that a neutrally written section can be created to answer the objective question, "What are the differences between the film and the actual event? Are there any similarities?" This would be done solely between the film and the event, of course -- the comic book won't get into the fray, and the article already states that it's a faithful adaptation of the comic book. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. I think it's too early to judge what reactions this film would receive, especially on an international level. I've noticed the so-called US vs. Iran factor, but it's possible that despite what I consider a silly analogy, the film may garner exactly that kind of reaction even from the most respected sources. In addition, I think we have to be wary that most people may not be aware of the "adaptation" factor, that there's more than just a "cool" style added to the Battle of Thermopylae. I think if any issues were to emerge in the future, the only reliable sources would be those that directly critique the film. It'll be interesting how to gauge the reaction of the film because very often the so-called vocal minority can sound like the majority. "THIS FILM IS RACIST" stands out more than, "I know this film isn't accurate historically, but I enjoyed it nonetheless." Things to watch out for, I suppose. We'll find out in a week. Probably should put together some standardized messages to drop off to people who aren't in line with the policies. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VI (II) - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Sparta

I have a POV-pusher who tried to erode Aspasia. I have to deal first with him, but then (probably tomorrow) I'll definitely have a close look in the article.--Yannismarou 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Version 0.5, 0.7

Hi Miskin, thanks for getting in touch. Actually, Version 0.5 is now closed - we expect to have the CD available later this month (I have been busy recently with that, offline). However, we are starting to work on the next release, Version 0.7, and we do need reviewers (yes, sign up for the review team and make a start). I plan to get Version 0.7 moving again in the next few days. Or perhaps you are interested in helping out with the 1.0 project in general? Here are some pages that may help you:

Let me know what you decide. We could really use some help right now! Thanks, Walkerma 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Sparta

Hi, Miskin. I got over my laziness and found Anton Powell's book on Amazon, and fortunately I was able to search to the cited pages. I can't recall the last time I discovered a more fraudulent use of sources. I suggest that you look at it yourself, it will be edifying. Suffice it to say that what Powell says is that (as you and I already knew full well) Lycurgus was successful at promoting chaste pederastic relationships. In the same breath Powell mocks claims of pederastic chastity by assimilating them to communist Chinese claims of the non-existence of adultery in communist China. The article claim on Aristotle (Spartan devotion to women) IS supported by the text on that page, but in the next page Powell resolves the conflict between Plato's views and those of Xenophon and Aristotle by resorting to an analysis of details, which, in his words, reveal that "references to particular homosexual attachments of Spartans are conspicuous even by Greek standards." The editor who massaged that text in the article deserves a rebuke. What do you propose to do? Haiduc 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry to be so vehement, we all make mistakes. A better solution, if you agree, is to keep the citations and modify the text to agree with Powell (since his interpretation is pretty much the presently accepted one and I have no problems with it.) Haiduc 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Battle of Thermopylae

Hello Miskin,
Long time no talk my old friend. Sorry for a bit of a late response, but this post is to the comment you had made earlier on the Thermopylae Talk page regarding how some keep putting "Pyrrhic" back. Well ever since that one anon left, I think there is only one user recently who has been advocating that, Lankybugger. I spoke to him, and he is a far more sensible fellow than that anon "ELV". He talked to me on my talk page and we reached the consensus that it wasn't a pyrrhic victory. I had earlier made a post in the Thermopylae talk page why it couldn't be classified like that, but he initially missed it, once he went over it, he seemed to agree. So I think this problem is rectified.
On another note, have you noticed the incredible amount of vandalizing on that page as of late, I wonder if it has anything to do with the attention spurred by 300 Hmm... LOL. See ya around.--Arsenous Commodore 15:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Thermopylae

Slavey was banned in the Persian Empire, so there couldn't have been any "slaves" in Xerxes's army. --Mardavich 14:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Many conscripted soldiers don't fight wars on their own free will, that doesn't make them slaves. Nobody "owned" anyone in Xerxes's army, there were no slaves. Please remove that POV assertion, or provide a reliable source that explicitly uses the term "slave". --Mardavich 14:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NN on ANI

Hi. A number of uninvolved editors looked at the issue, and they did not see any WP:POINT, and WP:ATT violations are not blockable offenses I think. Besides, most actions of NN was on the talk page, and not on the article page. There are lots (and LOTS) of talk pages filled with circular discussions, this is no grounds for blocking. Also, please remember, it takes more than one user to make a circular discussion, and while I did not look into your comments on Talk:Sparta in detail, on ANI it looks like you are also going head to head with NN. On this, User:Domitius behavior is even more concerning, and his stalking complaints are not helpful at all, but rather shed a bad light on him (her?). Overall, to me it looks a bit like a group of Greek editors have their view and resist other views. You are of course free to list further comments on NN's behavior on WP:ANI, but I am not sure what you want to achieve with it, and I would recommend against it. In the current discussion it seems NN's behavior is no cause for offense, except maybe for too long talk page comments (but then, a whole lot of editors would be guilty of that). Since this is more of a content dispute than an editor dispute, you may use some related approaches on WP:DISPUTE. E.g. on the superpower issue, that can easily be voted on. I hope this helps, even if i feel this won't satisfy you. Best wishes, -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Cool user page! -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Miskin. Woah, talking about looong messages! Anyway, Dispute resolution through discussion is a long and difficult process, and usually involves one or more editors that are difficult to deal with or to convince. From what I have seen, NN's discussion style may not be easy, but is definitely not anything out of the ordinary (and yes, i did NOT read the entire Sparta talk page). Believe me, I had worse. Much worse! (Danzig/Gdansk anyone?) That is just one thing we have to live with. Also, from his edit history, it does not look like edit warring besides a few reverts. Overall, this is definitely a dispute, but nothing out of the ordinary. It also seems, NN was reaching a consensus with some editors before he was blocked. The ANI discussion was rushed, and I am surprised that it was closed already. I would like to point out that I tried to slow down some rushing editors and proposed to wait for Yanni's response. Overall, Yanni seems to be a good admin, but this block was not supported by policy. Feel free to start a new discussion if you want. My apologies if i came across harsh. Anyway, I gotta go, best wishes and happy editing - Chris 73 | Talk 23:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: The diff you provided is a 3RR warning/notice, not an invitation to revert. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than take up anymore time, I'm going to simply second what Chris73 said. You have done a lot of work on the Sparta article, but that doesn't necessarily give you more say in it than NN or anyone else. I'd recommend reading WP:OWN again. I also agree that Yannismarou seems like a very good contributor, but he did make a mistake with that block. AniMate 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if people could understand WP:ATT and WP:V. It's quite simple, the fact that one does not happen like something which is sourced does not give a right to remove it without, at the very least, citing a counter source. Why people continue to have trouble with this mystifies me.--Domitius 23:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if what I wrote offended you, and that certainly wasn't my intention. I'm not being hard on Yannismarou, in my opinion. He made a mistake, and he should have apologized for it... which he did. I'm not asking for him to be recalled, I'm not asking for an RfC to be filed for his behavior, I'm not asking for an ArbCom case to be filed. All I ever asked was for him to apologize for a bad block... which he did. I'm not exactly taking sides, and when it comes to the content dispute I honestly don't know who is right.
You've been here longer than I have, so you should know how to follow the steps of dispute resolution. You've spent so much time bickering on the page that I think it's time to try another tactic. Go to the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome for some input or file an RfC on the content issue.
NN just left a message on my talkpage saying the matter of the block is closed and he's not going to be responding to anymore posts about. Great. I hope you abide by that, and continue focusing on getting the content issue resolved. If you feel his behavior warrants a closer look, by all means ask for some outside input on that at AN/I or any venue you deem appropriate. AniMate 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Last thing. Yannismarou wasn't "blacklisted." He's not in trouble. He's not banned from the article. He abused a power he had to silence someone in a content dispute that didn't have the same power. He acknowledged the mistake. You should too. Admins are held to higher standards than the rest of us.
Finally, you are very focused on rules. Remember, ignore all rules. I'm not sure this is wise of me or not, but reading the article on Sparta and the article on Superpowers, I'm not sure Wikipedia's definition of superpower syncs up with your sources definition of superpower. That's my very uneducated opinion, as I have very little background in politics or classics. But seriously, it's high time this dispute moved off of the Sparta talk page. Get it resolved. Get other people involved and move on. AniMate 00:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional account of the Battle of Thermopylae

Listen, I know it is kinda difficult to question the traditional account. When we do this it generally leads to the rejection of all types of other things we have accepted (this is why Copernicus and Galileo had such hard times). However, the fact is that we can't even begin to really accept the authenticity of ancient accounts at face value until the Peloponnesian War, and even then they are only occasionally accurate. For example in Roman history the accounts of the Second Punic War are generally thought to be relatively accurate as they take into account the logistical capabilities of the opposing sides and describes the actually difficulties that the generals had in supplying and moving their armies around. Compare this to the Cimbrian War between Rome and a coalition primarily consisting of the Cimbri and the Teutons, even though it took place more than a century after the second punic war the accounts of it are much less accurate and more shrouded in more legend than fact. This is why it appears that the battles of Arausio, Aquae Sextiae, Vercellae all appear to be larger than the battle of Cannae and the battle of Zama combined. When I first started to realize the inaccuracy of the historical accounts that I have been engroosed with for years I was devastated, but I did eventually accept them
You may wonder why smarted and more knowledgable historians then me apparently accept these accounts if I am correct. The answer is no that they are stupid, rather it is because they have to. at a basic level history is the study of written accounts. So in the absence of any reliable figures historians simply provide the only figures that they have. Do you really believe that in a battle between Aram Damascus and the Kingdom of Israel in 846 BC, the two sides could field enough soldiers so that their would be 127,000 casualties on the Aram Damascus side alone? Since the only account of that battle says that that is indeed what happened, historians will give those figures when writing about the conflict.- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk • contribs) 01:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] MedCab on Sparta?

I hate to see articles locked down as much as I hate to see two very good editors in conflict. If you're interested I'd be happy to get a case started at the Mediation Cabal, since you seem to have little faith in RfCs and I'm not sure how active the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome is. Regardless of your decision, I think this fighting isn't necessary and doesn't fit on Sparta's talk page. AniMate 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with your edits to my RfC, though it's better etiquette to ask first. Mostly I'm alright with it, because after looking at my original request... well let's say I should've proofed it a little better (at the least). If you feel you must continue your confrontation with NN, please do so in an appropriate venue (WP:AN/I or your talk pages). AniMate 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

It's your own idea. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg agrees with me and you can participate in a discussion in talk page.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be there when I can, just stop flooding this page with chucks of text please. Miskin 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

  • "What do you care about this topic anyway? Does it have to do with the fact that Domitius is involved here?" [1]
  • A. Garnet has never shown interest in the particular article, nor in any related article, nor has he ever proved himself knowledgeable on the topic. He appeared soon after he had a conflict with Domitius in a different article, Cypriot Civil War I think, where he received a block. And now, there you see him, pretending to be a completely neutral participant." [2]

Please don't make any more comments similar to the above ones. Remember to discuss only article content. Thank you. Khoikhoi 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi I said what I said in relation to the dispute at hand, there wasn't any intention of offending or belittling the other editor. Just expressing a pov. But I'll keep that in mind and avoid doing so in the future. Miskin 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. Khoikhoi 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to Calgacus, there is no ongoing dispute and he wants you to "leave him alone". Maybe it would be best if you stop leaving him messages, unless it's really important. I think the best to do right now is for you to ignore him and him to ignore you. An apology would be nice, but it's not really necessary. I've already talked to him about making personal attacks. The last thing we want is for someone to get blocked, and I don't think he's going to insult you anymore. Khoikhoi 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thermopylae

I did not do most of these edits but I am willing to help and have added a few. There is a fast loading Herodotus here [3] and a fast loading loading Diodorus here [4] Ikokki 13:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User subpages

Are all these subpages really relevant to Wikipedia? You may want to consider deleting some of them. The Jade Knight 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Sparta/Superpower

If you mean the last proposal, I support this one, too (and I am neither Turkish nor Persian nor Greek). A RfC by default involves a lot of other editors coming in and making comments. (As suggested above, read WP:OWN). On a related note, I am also not sure if the use of Superpower for the Persian Empire is proper, but i don't want to solve this problem beyond giving my 2 cents if necessary. As for 2c: "A biased editor instigates/creates a ruckus, gains sympathy, and by unorthodox, brute-force methods other non-neutral editors (group of Iranian and Turkish) become suddenly the authorities on the topic and protectors of the article.": I don't agree with this summary, looks to me like you're upset, and being upset is a bad time to edit Wikipedia in general. Overall, the whole consensus generating process is not pretty (on both sides!), but not unusual for Wikipedia. Not sure if this helps, but I wanted to respond. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Did you get my reply to your latest e-mail? If not, perhaps you should check your spam filter. the wub "?!" 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 Edits Again

Hiya, I wanted you to know that I had to revert your recent edit to 300 (film), and wanted to explain why. To begin with, the Greek critic's name is in fact Demitris (as cited in other places) and not Demitrios. As well, the other part "According to some opinions" replaced fairly clear writing with less clear - ie, for the "some". Hope that explains things. Of course, if you disagree with my edits, I welcome you to discuss them on the article's talk page. Cheers! Arcayne 22:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of the Greek nicknaming protocol, but as he published the review under his nick, then it should be included as such, and not his formal name, which may not be his professional name. Likewise, while I think the aim was to aim for NPOV, the effort was not as successful. Perhaps you could bring up the NPOV issue in the Discussion Page, and we can address the problem together? Arcayne 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have been a dick in my earlier editing history, and all it did was make me upset...over something I do for free. Meet the definition of both stupid and pointless. LOL. So, while i occasionally have to get oven mitts to get a handle on my temper, I am trying hard to be a better editor and Wikipedian. Thanks for the compliment. :) Enjoy your wikibreak. Arcayne 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am noticing that you are making some edits that might be seen as POV again. I realize its probably hard to remove your editing self from your heritage - I would, too. However, you need to address the fact that the Iranian outcry and Persian depictions cannot overpower the article. If you have vhanges to make, and by thinking about them consider that they might be a problem for the other editors, you could save yourself a lot of time and frustration by discussing those edits with your peers in the Discussion Page. If you look over the other discussions, very little is done without some sort of concensus. I have seen some of your edits int he past, and they are usually really good (for example, most have missed the Greco-Persian thing - I did, and I took a Second in Near-East History). Work with us, and things move a lot smoother. You may not get what you want all the time, but you ge tthe chance to discuss your POV ahead of time, and not after you've been reverted here and there. Just some advice. Arcayne 02:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and perhaps you might want to take a look at historical fantasy However, if you actually think that Xerxes employed giants and mummy-faced persons in his army, or was a 10-foot-tall giant himself. then perhaps you should oppose the idea of fantastical elements in the story. Maybe you are working from a different definition of the term than I am.
As for the nationality of the scholar, I fail to see how it comes into play here. If he was Irish or Pakistani or Japanese, would his words have any less weight? Arcayne 05:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You introduced a number of very interesting points, and I am hoping that I can address each of them to your satisfaction, Miskin. If you will recall, I have been fairly intolerant of the POV-pushing and politicization of this article, and I consider myself rather vigilant in smiting it wherever and whenever I see it. While idisagree with the Daryaee statements, I think he is addressing them from a point of view of his occupational specialty, and not of his ethnic background. I think that if you disagree with his statements, it is not OR to use the source material of Herodotus to dispute them. As the Daryaee statements are verified and RS, they are open to dispute as to their authenticity. That Herodotus was himself quite biased on the part of the Spartans is clear (being part of the Classics doesn't remove ancient authors from charges of bias, and Simonides, Aecshylus and Herodotus were all terribly biased).
As Daryaee is addressing history, it is clearly in our best interest to refute it historically, To address the matter by inserting their ethnic origin inferring their partisanship is the very picture of POV, to my reckoning. The mentioning of Greek ethncicity is to state that the reviewer was reviewing for a Greek newspaper. I don't really think it belongs (as the sentence can be re-worked to simply denote that they were writing for a Greek newspaper). That said, a representative for the Iranian government needs to be mentioned as such, as the source of the noteworthiness is the fac that a member of a government is commenting.
As for the arguments of historical fantasy, I truly understand your points there, and must confess that I was a little surprised at your suggestion that the application of the historical fantasy descriptor was in fact POV-pushing. The comparison between Alexander and 300 is not a valid one, personally. In the former movie, they dealt with all mamer of opponents, but I don't think that 12-foot-tall giants were amongst them. Neither were there any horror-faced Immortals (and I refer to the face under the masks). Xerxes is portrayed as a literal giant of a man (the tallest man on record was only 8'11, and that is withmodern nutrition). As far as I know, neither Rodrigo Santoro nor the actor portraying the misshapen warrior were nearly that tall.
These alterations do not represent a simple, point of view alteration to the events; they represent an intention to add fantasical elements into a historical narrative. That it is accomplished by Dilios is immaterial. There were no such elements utilized in Alexander. The usage of fantasy elements in a historical narrative fits the criteria of historical fantasy. It is arrived at from a point of reason, and not partisan sentiment. Frnakly, I am a little surprised at the accusation being leveled at myself. Arcayne 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daryaee Statements

I remember you mentioning that the Daryaee statements were contradictory to Herodotus' account. Could you tell me how they do so? I want to get your viewpoint on this. Arcayne 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Thermopylae

Can you please explain reason for Greek name reversion? Dr.K. 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to explain. Separate article on Thermopylae, should have known. Dr.K. 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Nobody was trying to delete the info Miskin, I only said that the current title was a fork. I put in my nom "Merge (if possible) any relevant content to Cyprus dispute" - Surely you must see that the expression "Turkish settlement" is not used in the English language? Merge the content - this issue is already talked about in the Cyprus dispute, right? I have the feeling that it is only because it was a Turkish editor who proposed the AfD that some of the delete votes are coming: that is really not cool. Can you seriously tell me that the expression "Tr settlement" (not settlers) is used in the English language? I really had thought that this was a non-issue.. And the idea of seeing the two AfDs in someway related is not correct either. Why do I have the feeling that there is an assumption of bad faith and distrust? It is about having the most efficient encyclopedia as possible.. cheers Baristarim 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VII (III) - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 15:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction / history contretemps

Hi, Miskin, actually when you attempted to respond to my proposed solution at 300 you ended up responding to Arcayne's ("fictional retelling"). My proposal is this:

300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, a work of historical fiction about the Battle of Thermopylae.

I've reposted it again at the bottom of the "fictional account" page.

I don't think there's any getting around the fact that the Miller work is a novel, which draws heavily on the historical sources, but also introduces a number of elements in the interest of entertainment. As you've been the most vociferous opponent to any use of the word "fiction," I wonder if you'ld mind weighing in on this one. Thanks, --Javits2000 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You said: "And no Arcayne, I had sincerely never thought of those priests and mummy-faced attackers as anything but deformed individuals."

Dude, I am never coming to your house! lol :D Arcayne 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We've now gathered six options from the past week's discussion. Would you mind having a look and weighing in as to which would be acceptable, and which you'ld prefer? Thanks, --Javits2000 12:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Miskin, thanks for weighing in ; i've read it and briefly responded (although you might think I'ld have better things to be occupying myself with on Maundy Thursday...) In any case, I understand your concerns, but two quick points; Islam, I think, has nothing to do with it, rather Iranian nationalism, which has always been more powerful than religion. And I really do not believe there's any danger of implying that Thermopylae never occurred in any of the present proposals. The best parallel I can think of is Joseph and His Brothers, which is based on Genesis, but is 1500 pages long. Likewise, Herodotus's account of Thermopylae takes all of 5 minutes to read (maybe 30 if I'm slogging through the Greek); whereas the film is two hours long. What fills in the space in between, is what I'ld call "historical fiction". Best, --Javits2000 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you've got me on Gladiator! Although my immediate reaction is to say that that's just wrong. Still, I can see why the versions w/o any description of genre would be considered more neutral; and for that matter, I also have a general problem with the logic of Wikipedia, according to which passionate response on "controversial" topics is somehow converted into a truth claim (or a "legitimate POV," or what you like). For the moment let's wait and see how this shakes out. The thing with passionate responses is that they tend to lose their fire after a week or so. --Javits2000 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was bout to ask you to clarify which of the choices you were going with, but then I read the back and forth between you and Javits (damn - had not thought of using 'utility' in that context - nifty). I do see your point, as well. If you have a different crafting, what would you say? 02:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/s/User_talk%7EMiskin_9f0d.html"