Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pericles/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Pericles
Self-nomination: When I first saw Pericles' article, I thought that this man deserves a bettter article. That is how I started rewriting Pericles about 45 days ago; a rewriting, which would almost become an obsession! The 12th of May I submitted the article to the peer review process. The article you are now called to judge is, mainly, the result of: 1) the initial editors' work, 2) my thorough rewriting, 3)the constructive contributions of other users during the peer-review process. My subjective opinion is that Lauren Alexandra is very awesome =]]heck yess!Pericles deserves to be FAT. You can now judge for yourselves! As far as I am concerned, I almost sure that Pericles' ghost will stop hunting me. Unfortunately, I do not know if this is a good or a bad thing! Yannismarou 18:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- NOTE: This article has 40KB of prose of as 23 May 2006
- Minor problem: All of the quotation blocks, with blue backgrounds, need to have their text color defined. For people with custom skins (like myself), the text is probably unreadable. So you would add color:black; into the table's style. --BRIAN0918 18:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Object due to the POV train wreck that is the conclusion. All in all this is a well-written article with few POV problems, but to conclude with a paragraph like this:
-
-
- Nowadays, we enjoy the rare achievements of a rare civilization led by a statesman of rare calibre, the great Pericles, "the ideal type of the perfect statesman in ancient Greece"[65]. "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"[65]. Was he infallible? Of course he wasn’t, but no great man avoided terrible mistakes, even at the pinnacle of greatness.
-
- is completely unacceptable and unencyclopaedic. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I changed the last two paragraphs as following:
-
-
- According to K. Paparrigopoulos, Pericles was "the ideal type of the perfect statesman in ancient Greece"[65]. 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"[65].
- Few people bequeathed to the next generations such a legacy; the monuments of Acropolis and the literary culmination of Thucydides are due to Pericles. According to K. Paparrigopoulos, "he decorated his city with masterpieces, which were sufficient to render the name of Greece immortal in our world"[65]. Nowadays, humanity can still admire his living heritage, the rare achievements of the Athenian civilization that Pericles led during its most glorious moments.
- According to K. Paparrigopoulos, Pericles was "the ideal type of the perfect statesman in ancient Greece"[65]. 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"[65].
-
- About the rest POV comments, I'll comment in a few moments, because I want my answer to be thorough. If there are any further oblections about this paragraph's POV, utter them now. Or, even better, go in and make the changes you would like. The article does not belong to anybody. Everybody can and should contribute, since editing a paragraph instead of rejecting is more creative and not so tiring.--Yannismarou 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Object; aside from the POV issues with the conclusion, there are a number of technical problems:
- Everything in the "See also" section is already linked in the text, so it should be removed.
- Greek letters for footnotes? It's a clever touch, but entirely baffling to someone first encountering the article. Is there some reason why the two footnote sections cannot be entirely combined? If there is, at least convert the first one to use something more familiar to the average reader, like English letters.
- Look at the article again. The Notes section, which uses Greek letters, contains notes, not references. The Citations section lists the references. So, these two sections shouldn't be combined. My only problem with the Greek letters is that they have bullets in front of them. If the bullets are removed, then I would be fine with them—learning a few non-English letters wouldn't hurt. --BRIAN0918 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of the distinction; but there's no reason both discursive footnotes and reference footnotes can't be in the same section, should the article editors so desire. Kirill Lokshin 00:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Look at the article again. The Notes section, which uses Greek letters, contains notes, not references. The Citations section lists the references. So, these two sections shouldn't be combined. My only problem with the Greek letters is that they have bullets in front of them. If the bullets are removed, then I would be fine with them—learning a few non-English letters wouldn't hurt. --BRIAN0918 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe convert the quotes to use a standard template, like {{cquote}}? Kirill Lokshin 20:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- To the people above, {{sofixit}}, takes how long to add a few css rules/rewrite one paragraph/delete a see also section? really... Anyway support, provided someone competent does a good copy edit on the prose. --zippedmartin 05:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't oppose. What are you complaining about? --BRIAN0918 17:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- And this isn't a vote. Just suggesting that minor things can be fixed in the amount of time it takes to write them here. Bigger issues like the below can be argued out, but in my mind the issues er.. Mr. 204.40.1.129 has would largely be resolved by a copy edit from a decent writer, it's more a style and tone issue than anything else. In my mind, css rules, 'POV' and footnotes aren't the right help-needed sign to be waving. --zippedmartin 09:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't oppose. What are you complaining about? --BRIAN0918 17:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Upon further reflection, I've come to the conclusion that the POV problems of this article extend far beyond the last paragraph. Starting with the lead's weasel-wordy "Probably the best known Athenian statesman that ever was", the article makes value judgements (implicit or explicit) throughout. For instance:
- "It was high time Pericles took aim at the conservatism’s den, Areios Pagos, the hub of the aristocracy."
- "Pericles seemed willing to do whatever was necessary in order to cajole the public. Nonetheless, we must not be harsh against him..."
- Phrases like "his most menacing opponent" to describe Cimon.
- "A. Vlachos acutely points out that the utilization of the alliance's treasury, initiated and executed by Pericles, is one of the worst defalcations throughout the human history; when we admire, however, the impressing outcomes of this defalcation, aren't we obliged to forgive him?"
- "...Thucydides not only laments the loss of a great man..."
- "The best hymn for Pericles is the famous paragraph of the historian Thucydides and his legendary phrase that Athens was "in name a democracy but, in fact, governed by its first citizen"[48]
- "...had he lived longer, he would probably have attained his goals through his steely persistence. The problem is that those succeeding him lacked his genius, his composure, and a clear vision."
- All this, combined with the fact that virtually all of the quotes about Pericles are favourable ones, and the fact that criticism of Pericles is itself criticized, and some dubious grammatical constructions (arising from unnecessary verbosity) are SERIOUS problems that this article must deal with before it can become an FA. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I comment on every topic as following:
- "Probably the best known Athenian statesman that ever was" was not my edit. As repeatitive and useless I removed it.
- "It was high time Pericles took aim at the conservatism’s den, Areios Pagos, the hub of the aristocracy." changed as "It was high time Pericles took aim at Areios Pagos, which was controlled by the Athenian aristocracy."
- "Pericles seemed willing to do whatever was necessary in order to cajole the public. Nonetheless, we must not be harsh against him..." changed as "Pericles seemed willing to follow a populist policy in order to cajole the public. His stance is explained by fact that his main opponent". I donot think this is POV now.
- "A. Vlachos acutely points out that the utilization of the alliance's treasury, initiated and executed by Pericles, is one of the worst defalcations throughout the human history; when we admire, however, the impressing outcomes of this defalcation, aren't we obliged to forgive him?" changed as "A. Vlachos points out that the utilization of the alliance's treasury, initiated and executed by Pericles, is one of the worst defalcations throughout the human history; a defelcation that financed, however, some of the most marvellous artistic creations". I think I make clear this is Vlachos' point of view not mine!
- Is the characterization "great man" POV?! For a man who was born 2501 years ago! After all, this is not my caracterization; it is Thucydides caracterization who laments him! Isn't that clear? I tried to adopt a more literary style. That is what you think as POV! But if I have to sacrifice it, in order this article to be FAT, I'll do it ... Hence, I changed "...Thucydides not only laments the loss of a great man..." as following "Thucydides not only laments the loss a man he admired, but he also heralds ...". I hope it is clear now that this is Thucydides' point of view; NOT MINE!
- "The best hymn for Pericles is the famous paragraph of the historian Thucydides and his legendary phrase that Athens was "in name a democracy but, in fact, governed by its first citizen"[48] changed as "In one of his rare praises, austere Thucydides, an admirer of Pericles, maintains that Athens was "in name a democracy but, in fact, governed by its first citizen"[48]. Through this laconic comment, the historian illustrates Pericles' charisma to lead, convince and, sometimes, manipulate a fickle people like the Athenians." Do not ask me to change "fickle"! That is how Britannica calls the Athenians! Unless Britannica is also POV!
- Comment: I comment on every topic as following:
- You are unfair to say that all quotes are favorable for Pericles. I did my best in order to find unfovorable ones! But there aren't any!! Nevertheles, I quoted:
-
-
- Plato's quote that he corrupted Athenians.
- Plutarch's quote who implies the same thing (note ε).
- Sarah Ruden's quote that Pericles was a "hawk".
- Muhlberger's comment who says the same thing.
- Paparrigopoulos' criticism that he led Athens to the stalemate of populism.
-
You know what is the real problem. There are not any negative comments against him! There aren't!! You cannot imagine how excited I was, when I found Sarah Ruden's reproach ("hawk") and I quoted it, although I did not even know this scholar! Even the ancient writers donot dare to accuse him. Plato and Aristotle say that "it is thought that Pericles ...". They donot dare to espouse the negative points of view! I am happy to mention any unfavorable comment. But not even contemporary scholars judge Pericles in a negative way. My whole interest while rewriting the article was exactly that: Find voices of criticism and quote them, trying to be objective. But how can anybody do that, when he finds just praises?!--Yannismarou 18:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The most severe examples of POV bias - the ones where the article tries to convince the reader that Pericles' mistakes should be forgiven - are the ones which you have not dealt with. The concluding paragraph, the part where the article asks "aren't we obliged to forgive him"...Aside from being informal and unprofessional, these are unequivocally non-neutral. It's not simply a matter of not quoting anybody with a negative opinion of Pericles; it's a matter of consistantly presenting Pericles' actions in a positive light, rather than neutrally. There's a difference between letting readers know how widely respected Pericles was/is and giving the impression that the authors of the article also hold this opinion. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I also answered to that, man, and I changed the last paragraph! See the answer under your first comment. By the way, I'm still implimenting your suggestions. And it is not me who asks the reader to forgive Pericles' mistakes. It is Vlachos! It is HIM who speaks about the defelcation and it is HIM who tries to justify it (IS HE? I do not think so-I think this is the harshest comment I ever read about Pericles!) I mention the defelcation and I mention his attempt to justify it, by posing a question (Correct: Vlachos poses the question). IT IS THE READER WHO FINALLY DECIDES IF THIS DEFELCATION WAS RIGHT OR WRONG! And by the way, you'll find no article about Pericles, speaking for "defelcation" and "embezzlement". Vlachos did it! I did it as well! And I deemed it stylish, to speak harshly about the defelcation, while posing (Correct: While Vlachos poses!) a question leading to another direction. But I donot conclude. I donot decide. It is the reader who will decide (And it was ecclesia which decided when Thucydides brought the subject in front of her!) Any way, I rewrited this edit. Do you still have objections? Do you suggest I erase it, although the editor (me!) does not support any side in this debate and just quotes Vlachos' (a Greek scholar and member of the Academy who is not unprofessional!) qhery?--Yannismarou 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't the role of an encyclopedia to ask open-ended questions about moral judgements. An encyclopedia presents facts (eg. Pericles was accused of embezzlement), and popular opinions about those facts (contemporary Athenians felt X, while scholars predominantly believe Y). Encyclopedias do NOT ask the reader to consider whether Pericles' actions were forgivable, and they certainly don't make pronouncements on the incredibleness of their subjects. This article should present the facts of Pericles' life, and those facts should include controversies, but this article should not take a position (explicit or implicit) on either side of these controversies. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'll rewrite this edit. Nonetheless, let me pose you a question: Britannica is calling the Athenians "fickle" and I also do it. Britannica is of course one of the best encyclopedias, but, according to your point of view, "fickle" is POV, because it is a judgment, an estimation about the Athenians' attitude and not a fact. "Fickle" is a reproach, according to your point of view, and a "moral judgement", including a "pronouncement". Hence, do you think that Britannica is POV?--Yannismarou 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- In this case, yes, Britannica is making a value judgement. What one person may consider fickle, another may consider intelligent and cautious. It would be encyclopaedic to note that many people believe the Athenians' behaviour to be fickle, but to call them fickle is POV. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Following your thought, the caracterisation "mavellous" for Acropolis that I use is also POV. We dont have the right to say that Parthenon is "marvellous", because we make "a value judgement". We donot have the right to use any adjective! We must say that "many people believe Acropolis is marvellous". Am I right? If I am, we must exclude any judgements, any adjectives from encyclopedias and include only "facts"! But, in order to expose a fact, you need "a value judgement", because every man sees the same "fact" ina different way! But then, how are we going to expose and analyse facts?!
- Anyway, I removed all rhetoric questions and rewrited the "aren't we obliged to forgive him" part, according to your suggestions. Take a look and comment, If you may...--Yannismarou 19:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be difficult and argumentative. This is just the way Wikipedia is run. See WP:NPOV for the official policy. Encyclopaedias aren't in the business of passing judgement. I agree with you that the Acropolis is marvelous, a wonder of the ancient world even, but I can't write in the article on the Acropolis that it is "one of the most impressive man-made structures ever built". Here's another example: The video game Super Mario Bros. is one of the greatest, most influential video games ever created. Anybody familiar with video games knows what kind of influence it had. But the article on it can't say "It's one of the greatest video games ever." Instead, it says that it's "universally considered a classic of the medium" and goes on to cite critics lauding it with praise. Ditto for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Any claim that you make about something's greatness has to be qualified in that (a) it can't be framed as the opinion of the editors of the article, and (b) it has to be backed up by independent sources. That's why you can't finish the article by writing "Nowadays, humanity can still admire his living heritage, the rare achievements of the Athenian civilization that Pericles led during its most glorious moments." There's nothing neutral about this; it's not backed up by an independent, verifiable source (nor could it be); it's merely the expression of your opinion (which is a reasonable one, but which shouldn't be in an encyclopedic article nonetheless). User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- This might be a good time for... Wikipedia:A_nice_cup_of_tea_and_a_sit_down. Alexthe5th 05:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be difficult and argumentative. This is just the way Wikipedia is run. See WP:NPOV for the official policy. Encyclopaedias aren't in the business of passing judgement. I agree with you that the Acropolis is marvelous, a wonder of the ancient world even, but I can't write in the article on the Acropolis that it is "one of the most impressive man-made structures ever built". Here's another example: The video game Super Mario Bros. is one of the greatest, most influential video games ever created. Anybody familiar with video games knows what kind of influence it had. But the article on it can't say "It's one of the greatest video games ever." Instead, it says that it's "universally considered a classic of the medium" and goes on to cite critics lauding it with praise. Ditto for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Any claim that you make about something's greatness has to be qualified in that (a) it can't be framed as the opinion of the editors of the article, and (b) it has to be backed up by independent sources. That's why you can't finish the article by writing "Nowadays, humanity can still admire his living heritage, the rare achievements of the Athenian civilization that Pericles led during its most glorious moments." There's nothing neutral about this; it's not backed up by an independent, verifiable source (nor could it be); it's merely the expression of your opinion (which is a reasonable one, but which shouldn't be in an encyclopedic article nonetheless). User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Following your thought, the caracterisation "mavellous" for Acropolis that I use is also POV. We dont have the right to say that Parthenon is "marvellous", because we make "a value judgement". We donot have the right to use any adjective! We must say that "many people believe Acropolis is marvellous". Am I right? If I am, we must exclude any judgements, any adjectives from encyclopedias and include only "facts"! But, in order to expose a fact, you need "a value judgement", because every man sees the same "fact" ina different way! But then, how are we going to expose and analyse facts?!
- In this case, yes, Britannica is making a value judgement. What one person may consider fickle, another may consider intelligent and cautious. It would be encyclopaedic to note that many people believe the Athenians' behaviour to be fickle, but to call them fickle is POV. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'll rewrite this edit. Nonetheless, let me pose you a question: Britannica is calling the Athenians "fickle" and I also do it. Britannica is of course one of the best encyclopedias, but, according to your point of view, "fickle" is POV, because it is a judgment, an estimation about the Athenians' attitude and not a fact. "Fickle" is a reproach, according to your point of view, and a "moral judgement", including a "pronouncement". Hence, do you think that Britannica is POV?--Yannismarou 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't the role of an encyclopedia to ask open-ended questions about moral judgements. An encyclopedia presents facts (eg. Pericles was accused of embezzlement), and popular opinions about those facts (contemporary Athenians felt X, while scholars predominantly believe Y). Encyclopedias do NOT ask the reader to consider whether Pericles' actions were forgivable, and they certainly don't make pronouncements on the incredibleness of their subjects. This article should present the facts of Pericles' life, and those facts should include controversies, but this article should not take a position (explicit or implicit) on either side of these controversies. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I also answered to that, man, and I changed the last paragraph! See the answer under your first comment. By the way, I'm still implimenting your suggestions. And it is not me who asks the reader to forgive Pericles' mistakes. It is Vlachos! It is HIM who speaks about the defelcation and it is HIM who tries to justify it (IS HE? I do not think so-I think this is the harshest comment I ever read about Pericles!) I mention the defelcation and I mention his attempt to justify it, by posing a question (Correct: Vlachos poses the question). IT IS THE READER WHO FINALLY DECIDES IF THIS DEFELCATION WAS RIGHT OR WRONG! And by the way, you'll find no article about Pericles, speaking for "defelcation" and "embezzlement". Vlachos did it! I did it as well! And I deemed it stylish, to speak harshly about the defelcation, while posing (Correct: While Vlachos poses!) a question leading to another direction. But I donot conclude. I donot decide. It is the reader who will decide (And it was ecclesia which decided when Thucydides brought the subject in front of her!) Any way, I rewrited this edit. Do you still have objections? Do you suggest I erase it, although the editor (me!) does not support any side in this debate and just quotes Vlachos' (a Greek scholar and member of the Academy who is not unprofessional!) qhery?--Yannismarou 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- The most severe examples of POV bias - the ones where the article tries to convince the reader that Pericles' mistakes should be forgiven - are the ones which you have not dealt with. The concluding paragraph, the part where the article asks "aren't we obliged to forgive him"...Aside from being informal and unprofessional, these are unequivocally non-neutral. It's not simply a matter of not quoting anybody with a negative opinion of Pericles; it's a matter of consistantly presenting Pericles' actions in a positive light, rather than neutrally. There's a difference between letting readers know how widely respected Pericles was/is and giving the impression that the authors of the article also hold this opinion. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Object This needs a very thorough copyedit, both to deal with grammatical and phrasing issues and to tighten up language that becomes unencyclopedic at a number of points. Also, on a content level, I would like to see discussion of the policies Pericles followed during his preeminence, particularly with respect to foreign policy and the empire; the congress decree, the coinage decree, and the megarian decree deserve mention, and I'd like to see a more thorough treatment of the events of the "First Peloponnesian War." Also, it seems to me that the article may be assigning Pericles too large of a role in the political arena during the years of Ephialtes' dominance--although I'll have to check my books to be sure about that. --RobthTalk 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
