Talk:Xenophon/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Origin of Xenophobic
Is Xenophon in any way related to the origin of the word "xenophobe/xenophobic, etc"? ~~pkmilitia
- Yes, but only the first part Xeno- is the same in both. The name Xenophon, of course, does not mean xenophobe/xenophobic. --D. Webb 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Xeno + phon = different sound or strange voice. Maybe, as a newborn child, there was something strikingly different about the sounds he made. Just a guess. P0M 05:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- That or he (or perhaps his family) had a gift for learning foreign ("xeno-") languages... In xenophobe the -phob part refers to fear... someone afraid of the strange, or, perhaps better put, of strangers, of foreigners... Seems somehow much the opposite of someone who might be known for talking like a foreigner, i.e., knowing foreign languages. If it had somethign to do with foregin languages, then I think this would have stood Xenophon in good stead in his Anatolian travels... Of course phon=/=glot... anyone an authority on Greek who could address whether a xenophon might have been a speaker of a foreign language? Xenophon777 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not likely; the root is phont-, not phon-. "Strange appearance" is possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- That or he (or perhaps his family) had a gift for learning foreign ("xeno-") languages... In xenophobe the -phob part refers to fear... someone afraid of the strange, or, perhaps better put, of strangers, of foreigners... Seems somehow much the opposite of someone who might be known for talking like a foreigner, i.e., knowing foreign languages. If it had somethign to do with foregin languages, then I think this would have stood Xenophon in good stead in his Anatolian travels... Of course phon=/=glot... anyone an authority on Greek who could address whether a xenophon might have been a speaker of a foreign language? Xenophon777 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Greek alphabet
Is it better to spell Xenophon with the circumflex, which often will not display, or unaccented, which will show up? Septentrionalis 03:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It displays just fine with Firefox.--Jpbrenna 04:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Xenophon's 'ring of falsehood'
His famous Education Of Cyrus (Cyropaedia) is agreed to be historic nonsense, completely different from the interesting real story we know from other sources.
The Persian Expedition is full of unlikely explanations - Cyrus the Younger apparantly becomes a real rebel after being falsely accused of rebellion and then pardoned. Xenophon is supposed to have been there in some haze capacity before emerging as a leader. His own account is full of examples of mistrust from those he led, all of it apparantly undeserved.
What's really remarkable is that he and Plato both give a view of Socrates and don't agree at all. He mentions Plato once in passing and Plato never mentions him at all.
--GwydionM 22:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
BC/BCE
I'd like to urge that it stay on BC, since its associated category is "431 BC Births".--SarekOfVulcan 07:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Also the article was begun with BC. Dwain
POV-Pushers
- Hmmm, actually, it appears that this is another article hit by User:Chooserr and User:Pitchka (aka Dwain) who apparently keep coming up at AN/I over date era style campaigning issues: [1] [2] --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've reverted your edit to my comment [3][4]. Please do not change other editor's comments. Either date era is acceptable according to policy, there's no need to defend either one. What is not acceptable is wide-scale style change campaigns, which Chooserr initiated and you are supporting. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- You changed my comment to make it appear I linked your username to Crusades. I see you've been warned before[5] not to change other editors' comments. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
MPerel, It's not another article hit by me. Before Dec 16 it was unified under BC/AD and Jagjig just changed the dates to BCE/CE a few weeks ago. Look at the history for once in your life. Chooserr 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes Chooserr, upon carefully examining the history I found that you first changed the era style on Dec 3 after it was stable for nearly a year. You subsequently were reverted by four other editors. On that day, you also changed at least 14 other articles from BCE to BC [6],[7], [8],[9], [10],[11], [12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19], most of which was reverted by many different editors. I understand that according to your user page you "hate" BCE (and you express having other style issues as well). I sympathize with you that you have strong personal feelings about the matter, however, please note that at Wikipedia editors cannot make grand-scale style changes to personal preferences when policy accepts either. I'm sure you're already aware, this particular style issue is controversial and has already been argued ad nauseum. There have been endless polls and even arbcom cases, with the only real conclusion resulting is that it is unacceptable for any editor to globally change styles for which there is no consensus. Please do not continue this. It isn’t an issue over which style is better. It’s a matter of whether one editor should be able to massively change styles to one he/she personally prefers. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- That wasn't the point - an article that begins with BC/AD stays that way, and the same is true for BCE/CE. He did the right thing by changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.46.2 (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This Article is Currently on a good Version
- Let's keep it that way--Xenaphon 05:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so--Xenophon of Ephesus 05:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- oh that's funny, real ha ha funny--Xenaphon 05:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rubbish--Xenophon of Ephesus 05:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- you're not going to get away with this--Xenaphon 05:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- keep talking--Xenophon of Ephesus 05:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- This version is the origional, leave it like it is now, do not change it from the good version, or you will be blocked!--Xenaphon 05:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Xenophon of Ephesus
What the hell was that all about?--63.22.2.224 17:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Date Wars <sigh> [20] Septentrionalis 19:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"This, by the way, is the only personal interaction with Socrates that Xenophon relates to us in all his writings."
Not true: See Memorabilia I iii 9-13. Also, most of the Memorabilia is Xenophon's personal reminiscence of Socrates.
--McTeague 02:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Right. And that passage was written by the same writer who is supposed to have been "present" at the conversation depicted in the Symposium (see the 2nd sentence of that work), which may be dated to 421 BCE (when the writer must have been no more than a child), and the same writer who is supposed to have "heard" the conversation with Critobulus in the Oeconomicus, which must have taken place after the writer had seen Socrates for the last time (since the Battle of Cunaxa is mentioned at 4.18). What is it besides such passages that give us confidence in accepting the writer's depiction as fact when he depicts himself in conversation with the character Socrates?
- If you are suggesting, Unsigned, that ancient Greek Socratic dialogues, by Plato, Xenophon and others, are literary works, and unreliable as journalism, then your opinion is in agreement with all professional Classical scholarship, as far as I am aware. My understanding is that Socratic dialogues have always been understood, even in antiquity, to be philosophical works and not word for word reporting of anything one of their characters said. Why else would Aristotle have written Socratic dialogues, when everyone knew he had never met Socrates? In fact, just about every work of antiquity claims to be quoting someone who could not possibly have said what was attributed to them. This type of attribution was practised widely in the ancient world. My own opinion is that Xenophon's works, like Plato's were intended by their authors to be sincere works of moral philosophy, economics or history, as the case may be, and should be evaluated on their own terms as such. Check out the wikipedia article on "Socratic Dialogue, " which has some information on the subject. McTeague 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Aristotle seems to have written "Socratic" dialogues, but none of them (I think) has a Socrates character in them. Still, it is true that following the period of the great writers of Socratic dialogues (Antisthenes, Plato, Aeschines Socraticus), there were many inferior writers of Socratic dialogues who imitated the originators of this genre. Among them are the authors of the spurious dialogues included (for reasons we cannot now fully understand) in the Platonic corpus. I believe a reasonable case can be made for including even Xenophon among these inferior imitators. It's true that he does seem to have personally known Socrates. At the same time, his interactions with him, even by his own account, were limited. Furthermore, he was not among the Socratics who personally witnessed Socrates' trial and execution, and clearly did not belong to what might be termed the inner circle of Socrates' followers. Xenophon's early interests were in the military, which undoubtedly is how he befriended Socrates. Xenophon does not seem to have cultivated a real interest in philosophy until he retired from the military. Xenophon seems to have been writing quite a bit later than many (or even most) of Plato's dialogues were. Unlike Plato's writings, ignorance of historical fact or just blatant inattention to historical fact is in abducance in Xenophon, and not just in the places cited by Anon above. These are some of the reasons for concluding that Xenophon's works are philosophical 'literature'. There is not nearly as much reason for concluding that the dialogues of earlier writers are mere literature as well. It's true that none of them perhaps was intended to be a word-for-word account. But clearly many of them were intended to be historically factual in more than just philosophical "spirit". Anyone who carefully reads Plato's Phaedo, for example, cannot deny this. Also, it's patently not true that "all professional Classical scholarship" agrees that Socratic dialogues in general are purely literary works. Just to name a few: Gregory Vlastos and many of his followers do not accept this, nor does Terry Penner. Many other prominent scholars could be named as well. Isokrates 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Xenophon's Father and Son
Is it true that both Xenophon's father and one of his sons were named Gryllus?--RandomWalker 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. It was common practice for ancient Greeks to name a first son after the more illustrious of the two grandfathers.
Shaftesbury link points to a city, not a person
There are a lot of people named Shaftesbury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.212.139 (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Persian Empire Map anachronisms
I have some minor criticisms of the content in the map used in this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Persian_Empire,_490_BC.png. It shows the route taken by The Ten Thousand from Sardis into the Persian Empire and the retreat to the Black Sea. It doesn't seem to portray any of their travel from that point to Byzantium/Thrace.
Additionally the map is showing the extent of Persia at 490 BC, it was clearly a different political situation at the time of Xenophon, for example Byzantium was not Persian possession I believe it was under Spartan influence. Chaozu42 (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Philosophia
In the first paragraph, he is listed as a "historian, soldier, mercenary and admirer of Socrates." I think that "philosopher" should be in that list. As is stated later in the article, he was regarded as a philosopher by Adams, Machiavelli and Strauss. If the reason for the omission is that the list seems to long and unwieldy to add "philosopher" then I recommend removing soldier (as "mercenary" already implies "soldier")119.149.14.233 (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree and I have inserted it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have found additional independent, verifiable, source material supporting my contention that Aleaxander was "inspired" by Xenophon's Ananbasis in undertaking his march across the Persian Empire. See Anabasis: The March Up Country, H.G. Dykson (Translator)(El Paso Norte Press: January 2, 2007)ISBN-13: 978-1934255032, wherein a recent review stated that "Even Alexander the Great was said to have kept a copy of this book and to have referred to it for inspiration." I hope this helps your decision-making process.108.14.217.173 (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC) ==July 15, 2012==
to "Dr.K" in particular: Thank you for showing me how to access this talk page. BTW, I corrected all of my spelling errors myself; I just thought it considerate to point out earlier typos, but apparently this annoys you. Sorry for giving you any such grief. It surely wasn't intentional. You already have my proposed addition, so I don't see the need to repeat it verbatim here. Contray to assertions made, I did cite reliable source material, namely, the McGoarty, Kiernan article published by the Oxford University Press in 2006, which itself cites many other ancient and modern authorities. In self-defense against your statements on your talk page, I am necessarily compelled to state that I don't understand your apparent hostility to my proposed changes, and I did NOT knowingly engage in any "vandalism" by correcting the spelling of "Expedidition" to "Expedition" --which you had apparently pointed out as being MY typo, which it was not, in one of your earlier comments. I thought I was doing a good deed, by correcting a typo, but this seemed to bother you, and here I am accused of potential so-called "vandalism" (an extreme term)! You can just imagine my reaction to this unwarranted attack. In any event, all I added was the thought, recognized by historians through the ages as cited in the article passim, above, that Alexander the Great had taken note of what he perceived as the relative ease with which Xenophon had traversed the interior of the Persian Empire, exposing its hollowness, which encouraged Alexander in his own well known adventure. You can rewrite or ignore that as you see fit. I don't wish to argue about this academic issue. Again, thank you for facilitating this discussion on the "talk page" by providing a convenient hyperlink to it. P. S.: In accord with my point, a commentator indicated recently (Geroge R. Dekle in Amazon.com's review and comments on Anabasis), that it inspired Alexander the Great: Bold text"the successful retreat of the Ten Thousand served as proof to Philip of Macedon that a Greek army could conquer Persia, and he made preparations for the invasion. Philip's death forestalled his plans, but Alexander took up his father's project and the rest, as they say, is history. If there had been no Westward march by the Ten Thousannd, there may have been no Eastward march by Alexander." This echoes the classical writer/source Eunapius, the sophist and historian born at Sardis c. AD 345, when he says in his Lives of the Sophists (VS 1,453): "Alexander the Great would not have become great if there had been no Xenophon." P.P.S.: I made no "personal attacks" on anyone; I merely defended myself from numerous personal attacks made on me. Really sorry, mystified, and dismayed that all this has come to this... over a small addition of an academic nature. Please focus on and address that substantive proposed contribution/matter. Thanks for your efforts in this regard. XENOPHON333 style
- — An IP posted this at the top of the page with some broken syntax: I'm sticking it here. davidiad.: 23:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Again. Please understand this is not between me and you so please do not make this personal. These edits were made by you. As I told you on your talkpage you changed the in-article word "Expedition" to "Expedidition" or "Expediton" as you did here and here and changing spelling to the wrong version is indeed considered vandalism. Also you added instructions in the article asking other editors to fix your spelling mistakes as you did here. These things do not "annoy" only me as you assert. They are simply unacceptable to all Wikipedians because they go against the rules of the wiki. So one more time: 1. You did introduce these spelling errors contrary to your denials that you did not. Just click here and here to examine your edits and discover that you changed the pre-existing word "Expedition" twice to the wrong version. 2. Please do not make this personal by referring many times to my username and wait for other editors to chime in because obviously you are not learning from my advice. 3. Giving you advice and telling you which rules you may have broken is not a personal attack. I hope you realise that you have made several mistakes. Pointing those mistakes to you is not a personal attack. It is an honest attempt to spend some of my time trying to help you. By you not recognising my good-faith attempt to teach you, my time is just wasted and I really don't have to spend it with someone who does not recognise even this basic fact. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dr K is right that the style of the writing is not really correct, but on the other hand, instead of just reverting why not re-write the inserted material into a more encyclopedic form, perhaps with a [citation needed] attached? I think it is true that Xenophon is commonly held by experts of the Hellenistic era to have been an influence upon Alexander and his conquering. We should not be citing Amazon.com of course, but it must be possible to find a reasonable source fairly easily?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Apart from being malformed and introducing what seemed to be intentional spelling mistakes, the edit(s) looked to me like original research because of the sweeping claims they made. Therefore I reverted and proposed discussion on talk to sort out these problems. By the way and for the record there were a series of edits by this editor not all of which were reverted by me. In addition some of the edits were completely uncited. As to why I did not correct them and left them in the article you will have to forgive me but I don't correct material that in good faith I think is original research with traces of vandalism to boot. I am not an expert on the subject and I prefer to be cautious by taking the proposed edit to the talkpage before inserting it in the article. If you think you can add it to the article please be my guest. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dr K is right that the style of the writing is not really correct, but on the other hand, instead of just reverting why not re-write the inserted material into a more encyclopedic form, perhaps with a [citation needed] attached? I think it is true that Xenophon is commonly held by experts of the Hellenistic era to have been an influence upon Alexander and his conquering. We should not be citing Amazon.com of course, but it must be possible to find a reasonable source fairly easily?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
XENOPHON333: Dear Dr.K and the other editors: Please take note that Wikipedia itself states elsewhere, under an article entitled "Xenophon," footnote 4, that: "Jason of Pherae's plans of a 'panhellenic conquest of Persia' (following the Anabasis), which both Xenophon, in his Hellenica, but also Isocrates, in his speech addressed directly to Phillip [Alexander's father], recount, probably had an influence on the Macedonian king." I submit this verifiable, reliable source authority with all due respect. XENOPHON333
- As I said above I am not an expert on Xenophon. But given my understanding of the situation after our discussion here, I think that your latest proposal looks reasonable and IMO it can be added to the article. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- XENOPHON333: All's well that end's well. Sorry we had words. It was all a terrible misunderstanding, and ignorance on my part of Wikipedia's protocol, but I assure you that no "vandalism" was intended, nor any intentional harm, and that I submitted my material in good faith and with respect. I recognize that you are a more experienced editor than I will ever be, and defer to your judgment, subject to the caveat that you understand that I never acted out of spite or in any nefarious way. BTW, my typing is not aces. Regards, XENOPHON
- The material as inserted did not conform to wikipedia's style and formatting guidelines, nor did it present the source in a fashion that anyone else could verify. It certainly read like OR to me as well. My suggestion is that, because the WP:BURDEN is on the person wishing to add material, that they review WP:V and WP:CITE and then present a rewrite here on the talk page for us to review and see if it can become suitable in quality and formatting for insertion into the article. Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you XENOPHON333 for your kind words. I agree all's well when ends well. :) It is nice that after a rather rocky start we have reached an understanding based on mutual respect. I also thank Montanabw for their comments and I agree with them that XENOPHON333 may submit their proposed edit here and perhaps some improvements or modifications could be made to the edit prior to its entry in the article. The way I understand it is that XENOPHON333's new version is a less problematic one because as he mentions above he just wants to establish that Xenophon probably influenced Alexander and does not make any sweeping claims as in the original edit. If we can agree on a reliable source to support this edit everything should be ok. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- The material as inserted did not conform to wikipedia's style and formatting guidelines, nor did it present the source in a fashion that anyone else could verify. It certainly read like OR to me as well. My suggestion is that, because the WP:BURDEN is on the person wishing to add material, that they review WP:V and WP:CITE and then present a rewrite here on the talk page for us to review and see if it can become suitable in quality and formatting for insertion into the article. Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- XENOPHON333: All's well that end's well. Sorry we had words. It was all a terrible misunderstanding, and ignorance on my part of Wikipedia's protocol, but I assure you that no "vandalism" was intended, nor any intentional harm, and that I submitted my material in good faith and with respect. I recognize that you are a more experienced editor than I will ever be, and defer to your judgment, subject to the caveat that you understand that I never acted out of spite or in any nefarious way. BTW, my typing is not aces. Regards, XENOPHON
XENOPHON333: No problem. "Probably" is certainly good enough for me, especially when dealing with ancient or classical matters! The other Wikipedia article I referenced said only "probably" too in its text, though the footnote seems more definitive, as does the McGroarty, Kiernan article I cited previously (BTW, it's available on line). I suggest the following for review and comment by others (feel free of course to revise!):
Proposed section
"It seems probable, moreover, that Alexander the Great, and his father, Phillip of Macedon, were at least influenced by the Anabasis of Xenophon in their ambition to invade and conquer the Persian Empire, for the movement of 'the 10,000' by Xenophon through the interior of the Persian Empire indicated that, logistically and tactically, a large scale invasion would have at least a reasonble chance at success. FN: See McGroarty, Kiernan,'Did Alexander the Great read Xenophon?' 181 Trinity College Dublin Review 105-124 (Winter, 2006: Oxford University Press) (ISSN 0018-0750). In that article, the author states that '...many writers, both ancient and modern, have no doubts concerning the influence of Xenophon's writings on Alexander.' In this regard, they note that an ancient source, 'Eunapius, the sophist and historian born at Sardis c AD 345,' actually went so far as to exclaim that 'Alexander the Great would not have become so great if there had been no Xenophon.' The author concludes that 'Eunapius might mean little more than Alexander had heard of, and been inspired by, what Xenophon had done in Asia.' Further, they state that 'most modern literature is in no doubt that he [Alexander] did [read Xenophon]. Almost all the major monographs on Alexander, those by Wilcken, Robinson, Tam, Hammond and Lane Fox, among others, take it for granted that Alexander had read and learned from Xenophon.'" Accord: Wikipedia article on "Xenophon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_(Xenophon)(use hyperlink to first cited article)). There, it is stated stated Alexander "probably" was influenced by Xenophon, citing, at FN 4: "Jason of Pherae's plans of a 'panhellenic conquest of Persia' (following the Anabasis), which both Xenophon, in his Hellenica, but also Isocrates, in his speech addressed directly to Phillip [Alexander's father], recount, probably had an influence on the Macedonian king." The main text of the Wikipedia article, which FN 4 supports, states: "Xenophon's account of the exploit resounded through Greece, where, two generations later, some surmise, it may have inspired Philip of Macedon to believe that a lean and disciplined Hellene army might be relied upon to defeat a Persian army many times its size." [I assume you all will want to shorten this entire edit, but I provided most of the source material for your reference so you could cut at your own discretion in an informed way.]
REWRITE (all edit here). It looks to me that we are basically adding and properly sourcing one new sentence, possibly two, if we add the material from the other wiki article. (BTW, Wikipedia can't be used as a source for wikipedia). Montanabw(talk) 16:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Alexander the Great, and his father, Phillip of Macedon, may have been influenced by the Anabasis of Xenophon in their ambition to invade and conquer the Persian Empire, as Xenophon's movement of 'the 10,000' through the interior of the Persian Empire implicitly suggested that a large scale invasion had a reasonable chance at success. FN: See Hirsch, S. 'The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire" (Hanover VA: University Press of New England 1985),as cited in King, David R.,'Managing Uncertainty: Lessons from Xenophon's Retreat (Milwaukee, WI: College of Business Administration, Marquette University)(epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?.article+1054&content=magmy_fac); id., McGroarty, Kiernan, 'Did Alexander the Great read Xenophon?' 181 Trinity College Dublin Review 105-124 (Winter, 2006: Oxford University Press) (ISSN 0018-0750). In that article, the author states that '...many writers, both ancient and modern, have no doubts concerning the influence of Xenophon's writings on Alexander.' In this regard, the author notes that an ancient source, 'Eunapius, the sophist and historian born at Sardis c AD 345,' actually went so far as to exclaim that 'Alexander the Great would not have become so great if there had been no Xenophon.' The author concludes that 'Eunapius might mean little more than Alexander had heard of, and been inspired by, what Xenophon had done in Asia.' See, Dye, Wayne J.,'In Search of the Philosopher King,' Archeological Nes XI (1982), as cited by McGroarty, his Fn. 1. Further, McGroarty states that 'most modern literature is in no doubt that he [Alexander] did [read Xenophon]. Almost all the major monographs on Alexander, those by Wilcken, Robinson, Tam, Hammond and Lane Fox, among others, take it for granted that Alexander had read and learned from Xenophon.'" Id., supra. (And swipe FN 4 from Anabasis_(Xenophon) "stated Alexander 'probably' was influenced by Xenophon" and "Jason of Pherae's plans of a 'panhellenic conquest of Persia' (following the Anabasis), which both Xenophon, in his Hellenica, but also Isocrates, in his speech addressed directly to Phillip [Alexander's father] (see 'Hellenica' - A History of My Times by Xenophon, EPN Press, 2009, ISBN 934255), recount, probably had an influence on the Macedonian king." [The folowing exposition is somewhat repetitious and could be simply deleted: Xenophon's account of the exploit resounded through Greece, where, two generations later, some surmise, it may have inspired Philip of Macedon to believe that a lean and disciplined Hellene army might be relied upon to defeat a Persian army many times its size.]
Comments on proposed section
TO: Dr.K and the others: BTW, I, too, much prefer a relationship based on mutual respect and understanding. Before, when I first started all this, I was quite taken aback, even offended, by the comments from Dr. K, but now I much better appreciate 'where he/she was coming from' (in the vernacular) HAPPENED TO THE OFRMT as a professional matter." I hope this proposed edit meets with some consensus and modicum of approval, however it might be utimately edited or cut down. I really just tried to make a contribution of some bit of learning with which I was familiar. Regards, XENOPHON333 P.S.: Sorry, something happened to the format, and the proposed edit. I must have messed up. BTW, I, too, am pleased that our discourse is much better now that we are on civil, productive terms... No one likes vitriol and acrimony! (except crazy people) Regards XENOPHON333
- Thank you XENOPHON333. I am also glad that the climate of the discourse has improved tremendously. As regards the format please do not add the double equal signs (==) to your edits as this automatically creates a section and treats all text between the signs as a title. Further do not add a space between your writing and the left margin because that creates the dotted-line box. As far as your proposed edit I don't have time now to review it but if any other editor agrees with you in my absence please do not wait for me and go right ahead and include it. Best regards and thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I will comply. XENOPHON333
- This is the link from marquette.edu about "Managing uncertainty" which XENOPHON333 provided above: Managing uncertainty. In this reference it is mentioned that:
For example, Alexander the Great was familiar with Xenophon’s work and his invasion and subsequent conquering of Persia was potentially inspired by it (Hirsch, 1985).
But the other reference provided Did Alexander the Great read Xenophon?, Did Alexander the Great read Xenophon? Abstract seems, from a cursory first look, like a rebuttal of the former reference (Managing uncertainty) and claims that Alexander was not really influenced by Xenophon to the degree classical writers claim, sample conclusion:This is nonsense. The idea that Alexander the Great led his forces with a spear in one hand and Greek literature in the other (Xenophon, and, Homer, of course) is simply not tenable. Yet because of appropriation by the Greeks many writers have gone looking for Alexander in Xenophon and have found him there regardless of the evidence
. All in all the combination of these two references leaves things uncertain as to the amount of influence that Xenophon exerted on Alexander. As far as I can see these two sources i.e. Managing uncertainty and Did Alexander the Great read Xenophon? are the only sources that XENOPHON333 has and all other sources that he mentions, including the quotes, are already included, analysed and referred to in these two main sources. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is the link from marquette.edu about "Managing uncertainty" which XENOPHON333 provided above: Managing uncertainty. In this reference it is mentioned that:
- XENOPHON333: You are utterly ignoring the quote from "Did Alexander read Xenophon" in which the author states (concedes) bluntly that Eunapius "meant" that Alexander was "inspired by" Xenophon's Anabasis. What about that? No one is seriously or literally contending that Alexander carried Xenophon "in one hand and a spear in the other": that is a classic "straw man" type of argument -- setting up an extreme point only to be able to seemingly "refute" it, when it wasn't on the table in the first place. There is no doubt, however, as plainly acknowledged by the 2006 article by McGroarty (and the Wikipedia article on Xenophon that I quoted, citing a variety of ancient sources, such as "Jason of Pherae" by name), which reviews and takes into account most of the extant literature over the many years by name, that Alexander and his father Phillip were, indeed, influenced and "inspired" by what Xenophon had accomplished with only 10,000 soldiers, traversing the Persian heartland from central Mesopotamia to Trapezond on the Black Sea coast of present day Turkey. Importantly, Alexander invaded not with 10,000, but with about 40,000. Also the 2006 McGroarty article cannot be a "rebuttal" -- contrary to what you surmise and assert -- of the "Managing Uncertainty" article, for the latter is dated 2011. Also, are you committed to asserting that the other Wikipedia article is untruthful/false? It sure seems so. XENOPHON333
- I am not surmising and asserting anything about McGroarty. I used the term "rebuttal" colloquially as in "negates" the point that "Managing uncertainty" tries to establish, not in the literal meaning of the term. So please calm down. The point remains however that as far as "Did Alexander the Great read Xenophon?" is concerned we cannot cherry-pick parts of that reference which in its totality rebuts the thesis that Alexander was influenced by Xenophon. As far as the second reference Managing uncertainty is concerned, it is not even a historical work but a business paper which only refers to Xenophon's influence on Alexander in passing. Also please note that we cannot quote other Wikipedia articles to back up any claims. It is simply not allowed by our policies. All in all these are really weak references for the point that you want to make at least IMO. Let us now wait for more editors to chime in so that we can have more input and hopefully waste less time disagreeing amongst ourselves. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- XENOPHON333: You are utterly ignoring the quote from "Did Alexander read Xenophon" in which the author states (concedes) bluntly that Eunapius "meant" that Alexander was "inspired by" Xenophon's Anabasis. What about that? No one is seriously or literally contending that Alexander carried Xenophon "in one hand and a spear in the other": that is a classic "straw man" type of argument -- setting up an extreme point only to be able to seemingly "refute" it, when it wasn't on the table in the first place. There is no doubt, however, as plainly acknowledged by the 2006 article by McGroarty (and the Wikipedia article on Xenophon that I quoted, citing a variety of ancient sources, such as "Jason of Pherae" by name), which reviews and takes into account most of the extant literature over the many years by name, that Alexander and his father Phillip were, indeed, influenced and "inspired" by what Xenophon had accomplished with only 10,000 soldiers, traversing the Persian heartland from central Mesopotamia to Trapezond on the Black Sea coast of present day Turkey. Importantly, Alexander invaded not with 10,000, but with about 40,000. Also the 2006 McGroarty article cannot be a "rebuttal" -- contrary to what you surmise and assert -- of the "Managing Uncertainty" article, for the latter is dated 2011. Also, are you committed to asserting that the other Wikipedia article is untruthful/false? It sure seems so. XENOPHON333
- XENOPHON333 O.K. But I am not cherry picking; the McGroarty article, in setting up a straw man extreme theses,that Alexander invaded with one hand holding a spear and the other Xenophen, actually proves too much, or too little, depending how you look at it: the author is constrined to concede that Alexander was, indeed, influenced and "inspired" -- his own words, not mine -- by Xenophon. The article merely debunks the notion that Alexander was obsessesed with Xenophon and had no origianl idea of his own, clearly a straw man and clearly untrue. In trying to go against the great weight of the historical evidence, as McGoarty acknowledges believes Alexander was influenced by Xenophon, McGoarty has in passing has to acknowledge the truth of those views, just not the blind devotion to the proposition of Xenophon's overweening influence. McGroarty was trying to make a name for himself in the academic world by bucking the massive, ancient and modern, consensus, but in fact had to acknowledge it in passing in order to challenge it. It is ironic that McGroarty's article acknowledges the underlying truth of what it sought to negate. Also, all the authorities cited in FN 4 of the other Wikipedia article must be untrue, too, according to McGoarty's -- and apparently, your, way of thinking. In sum, I have devoted more than enough time to this matter, and if you and the other editors are determined to quash my edit, contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, I cannot be responsible for talking all of you out of what manifestly seems to be an errant, and aberrant, course of action. It has nonetheless been stimulating working on this project, and dealing with the editor's comments. Regards, XENOPHON333
I understand your points, especially when you say that McGroarty in fact acknowledges that many scholars believe that Alexander was influenced by Xenophon while at the same time trying to rebut these scholars. In fact I was thinking about that very point myself. Actually I was pondering how can we use McGroarty's paper to establish the opposite of what he actually asserts. It is a difficult call but I agree with you when you say that McGroarty seems to buck the trend of the scholarship and ironically this is apparent in the writings of his own paper. So contrary to what you say about my opinion, I am not convinced at all that McGroarty's thesis is correct. I actually think that you may be correct in your analysis. The only thing is how can we pick parts of McGroarty's paper where he states that so many historians believe that Xenophon influenced Alexander while leaving out his own doubts. I am afraid this could be construed as original research, even though there are mitigating factors against such conclusion. But let's see what other editors have to say about this. Regardless, thank you for a stimulating discussion on such an interesting topic. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC).
- XENOPHON333: FYI editors: Here's an additional citation supporting the position that Alexander the Great made use of Xenophon's Anabasis, in particular, Xenophon's military tactics in employing a mobile reserve, in Alexander's own campaigns in Persia. See Ancient History Suite 101 "Xenophon of Athens": "...Xenophon decided to fight his way North along the East bank of the River Tigris as far as the Black Sea. The Persians, who despite overwhelming numbers, were unable to defeat the heavily armed Greeks, resorted to hit and run tactics, which Xenophon countered by forming a highly mobile reserve and it is fitting that Alexander the Great would make use of his account of the Anabasis (expedition) of the Ten Thousand during his own campaigns against the Persians." suite101.com/article/xenophon-of-athens=a302305. I think this qualifies as "fair use" under the copyright doctrine, especially if a shorter quotation, or just a cite, is used and referenced. Good luck! Best regards, Xenophon333 XENOPHON333 Further good news: I have finally found the source material that directly expresses the fundamental concept that I had advanced in my edit, namely, that Xenophon's exploits helped pave the way for Alexander the Great by encouraging in him and his father, Philip of Macedon, the notion that a Greek army could indeed defeat the Persians in their own territory. This concept is expressed by none other than the world historian Will Durant (whose writings I recalled from my College years). See Durant, Will "The Story of Civilization, Volume Two: The Life of Greece" (1939; 1966)(Electronically Enhanced Text 1994 World Library, Inc.), at p.528: "The news of their [the 10,000's] exploit [in reaching the Sea at Trapezus travelling from central Mesopotamia] resounded proudly through old Hellas, and encouraged Philip, two generations later, to believe that a well-trained Greek force could be relied upon to defeat a Persian army many times its size. Unwittingly, Xenophon opened the way for Alexander." I don't think Wikipedia will be embarassed in relying on Durant as its verifiable source, inter alia, for this is the learning that has been passed down through the ages. The point was substantially absent from the original version of the article that is currently under edit on the Anabasis of Xenophon, i.e., its world-historical significance in serving as a bridge, as it were, to Alexander the Great's own exploits two generations later. Best regards again to Dr. K, montanabw, Andrew Lancaster, and all the other editors, and thanks for their interest in this matter. (FYI, the internet citation for this electronic version of Durant's text is available as an ebook at: www.scribd.com/doc/48268980/Will-Durant-The-Story-of-Civilization-02-the-Life-of-Greece.) Incidentally, anyone can find this article online by doing a Google search for "Durant and Xenophon" and then searching for the one-line excerpts found in the Durant article "The Story of Civilization, Volume Two: The Life of Greece" that mention "Xenophon" until coming upon the passage cited above, indicated as being at p.528 of Durant's master work. As with the prior quotation, I believe that this is "fair use" under the copyright doctrine, being less than 50 words from a work containing many thousands, and being used for academic, and definitely not commercial, purposes, namely the free internet encylcolpedia, Wikipedia. XENOPHON333
- XENOPHON333 please note: When you reply please start from a new line. Further before you answer add to the margin one or more colons (:) so that your reply will start from a different indentation point relative to the previous reply. This will give your reply a distinct block space within the discussion thread and will facilitate the readers of the thread. Further you do not have to preface your replies with your username. You can simply add four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your reply and the wiki markup language will automatically register your name and append also the time to your signature. But you have to log on to your account first. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- XENOPHON333 Thank you for the guidance as to format. Unfortunately, I don't believe I have an "account" -- I never created one myself. In any event, I hope my prior proposed edit will be helpful to the group of editors. I'm afraid I really just don't have more time to devote to this matter, and you may do what you wish with the material as it is: either incorporate a proposed edit along the lines I have written, revise it yourselves, after doing further research of your own, or simply reject the entire proposal. I have done my best at trying to meet the needs of the group. Respectfully, 108.14.212.113 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well you almost made a perfect indentation. :) You just missed a colon. Good job! As far as the material I think you made some good points. I am inclined to add something along the lines we have discussed but I will wait for some more input from other editors. And you do have an account. Take a look at User talk:XENOPHON333. Take care and thanks again. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- XENOPHON333 Thank you for the guidance as to format. Unfortunately, I don't believe I have an "account" -- I never created one myself. In any event, I hope my prior proposed edit will be helpful to the group of editors. I'm afraid I really just don't have more time to devote to this matter, and you may do what you wish with the material as it is: either incorporate a proposed edit along the lines I have written, revise it yourselves, after doing further research of your own, or simply reject the entire proposal. I have done my best at trying to meet the needs of the group. Respectfully, 108.14.212.113 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- XENOPHON333 please note: When you reply please start from a new line. Further before you answer add to the margin one or more colons (:) so that your reply will start from a different indentation point relative to the previous reply. This will give your reply a distinct block space within the discussion thread and will facilitate the readers of the thread. Further you do not have to preface your replies with your username. You can simply add four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your reply and the wiki markup language will automatically register your name and append also the time to your signature. But you have to log on to your account first. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to review the mass of text above. If you folks have a consensus, then go to the proposed language above, and in the space I am creating below, format and edit it PROPERLY, with correctly done citations, proper wikipedia markup, ref tags and everything else needed so that it looks EXACTLY the way you think it should look in the article (as right now, it's gibberish) and then when it passes muster, we copy and paste it into the article. Those of us who are more experienced editors can refine the formatting, but we are NOT going to wade through all this material gleaning out two sentences. Montanabw(talk) 17:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
New addition here
- : XENOPHON333: Dr. K. himself did NOT conclude that the proposed edit was "gibberish" -- on the contrary, he wrote that it made good points and substantially concluded that it was deserving of inclusion on the merits of the point I had made, with which he agreed. Nor is there any so-called "mass" of material -- just, as was required, academic citations to authority supporting the edit. If further formatting is required, as said in the comment above, I ordinarily would have endeavored to perform this task to the best of my ability, though not being familiar with Wikipedia's protocols since I am a complete newcomer. However, I am not going even to attempt to appease the comment above by Montanabw because I believe it was made in bad faith, and that it constitutes a "personal attack" on both me and my proposed edit. Further, in this regard, I believe that the Montanabw comment above is not based on the merits. In sum, I have concluded that Wikipedia as a whole has shown that it is unworthy of receiving the information in my proposed edit, which is based on sound, academic research (unless you believe Durant is not up to your standards). 108.14.212.113 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC) ------
- : Furthermore, it must be recalled that I furnished the citations to numerous verifiable, reliable sources precisely in direct response to the requests of Dr. K (and others) that I do just that, and, now, you have the temerity to attack that very Work Product, in the form it was elicited and reviewed, as being "gibberish"(!) I must profoundly object to your antagonistic, hostile, derisive, and abusive "tone." Perhaps, it seems to me, you have gotten away with talking down to, or demeaning, people all your life, but it certainly stops with me. By attacking the current form of the proposed edit, a work in progress as a result of my dialectic with Dr. K and others over several days, instead of addressing yourself to the substance, as Dr. K had specifically requested you do, you betray the apparent reality that you do not, and cannot, proffer any objection to the substantive veracity of the point, and authorities in support of that point, that I have painstakingly furnished over the past several days. Instead, you shift to mere formalism in a vindictive way. Did you really think you would elicit a positive response with your vituperative, high-handed, and imperious comments and tone? I wouldn't want to contribute the time of day to Wikipedia now in light of the attitude displayed in the last comment by Montanabw, namely, that of a dedicated foe. To Dr. K, I can say only that it's too bad it all has to end this way, after all our constructive work together, which I truly enjoyed. But you need to get your own house in order if you want persons of good faith to work with you and Wikipedia. Magna est veritas et praevalet ! 108.14.212.113 (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Chill. My point is that what you wrote is incomprehensible, unclear, too wordy, thus = gibberish. All I said was REWRITE THIS SO IT'S READABLE, SHORT, SWEET AND TO THE POINT. I'm not even arguing your point, if you even have one buried in the avalanche of verbiage above. I'm saying that if you two agree, then write up a version the rest of us can understand because I'm not going to do your work for you. Montanabw(talk) 19:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- : XENOPHON333: You still seem to be willfully ignoring the plain fact that Dr. K specifically asked you and the other editors to give your substantive opinion of "my point," i.e., that Xenophon helped pave the way for Alexander, as numerous cited authorities attest, but, instead, you have deftly dodged your responsibiity to weigh in by giving your substantive viewpoint, and have demeaningly relegated the substance of the proposed edit solely to the work of "you two" -- namely, to Dr. K and me -- in contravention of Wikipedia's policy, as I understand it, that edits are to be a collegial effort. Your glancing swipe at the merits of the proposed edit by snidely remarking "if you even have one" belies the self-evident fact that the "point" was clearly, and repeatedly, stated, at Dr. K's request, in the prior substantive portions of the proposed edit, and was not recapitulated -- since it was unnecessary -- in my response to your personal attack on me and my proposed edit. Tellingly, however, you had in fact previously reviewed what you most recently deride as a "mass" of text, and at no time, then, did you state that any portion, or all, of the proposed edit was, as you now say, again, "gibberish". (Significantly, I did provide, as requested at the time, the "URL's" to the cited authorities, and made other revisious to the proposed edit as requested by you, only to be told, now, twice, that it's all "gibberish".) In my view, that's an assertion that you concocted subsequent to my citation of Ancient History Suite 101 and Will Durant in support of "my point." And that's why I believe your current demands are motivated by a sour grapes attitude, intended to throw up a procedural roadblock to acceptance of the proposed edit in any form, especially in view of the fact that I am not an experienced editor using the Wikipedia protocols that you stipulated previously, e.g., "correctly done citations, proper Wikipedia markup, ref tags," and so would be confronted with a high hurdle to surmount. It appears to me that you have taken this course of action because you realize that I "won" (or you "lost") on the substantive issue, something you probably didn't expect would happen. Consequently, any reformatting/rewriting that I might otherwise have attempted to do, or that Dr. K might be persuaded to do as you seem to suggest, apparently might well be an exercise in vain. Given your attitude, I don't believe that ANY rewrite done by me, and, perhaps, even by Dr. K, would or could ever meet with your approval. Nonetheless, since Dr. K is indeed an experienced Wikipedia editor, and is one of "you two," on the substantive point, I suggest that it would be most efficient and practical if he were to try his hand at technically reformatting the proposed edit in a manner to his satisfaction, rather than my further spinning my wheels to no purpose. Perhaps we can now move forward on that basis and terminate this current exchange of opinions. As reflected in the correspondence on my talk page, however, you have substantially alienated not only me, but also Dr. K, who is reticient about participating as an editor under the current "climate" and "geometry" of the situation, i.e., with you looking over his shoulder, so that it appears unlikely, at this time, that a solution to this impasse can be found. Consequently, it appears that, for now, you have succeeded in your campaign to quash this proposed edit, and to block the attempt to add salient, widely recognized learning to the Wikipedia article on Xenophon.108.14.212.113 (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- SIGH! You are missing the point. I could not possibly care less about Alexander the Great in this context; either you have proper reliable sources or you don't. If you do (and I assume you do) then the point is if the rest of you have consensus, then READ THE WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES and WP:MOS and learn how to put in something to the article PROPERLY -- It's not my job to wade through the above wall of text because it's either WP:V or it's not. It's YOUR job to edit properly. So go for it, I'm not stopping you. Montanabw(talk) 01:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Like Dr. K, I am awaiting deliverance by a "Deus ex Machina" editor to relieve us of this "editing tragedy," for neither Dr. K nor I will participate further under your dominance, nor given the current "climate" that your prior hostile remarks and recriminatory attitude -- no matter how you may, now, try to distance yourself from them -- have engendered. And in my opinion you are still being disingenuous when you write that you "assume" I/we have reliable authority, for you well know PRECISELY what authority has been cited (including its URL's), and yet you continue to cast aspersion or hypothetical doubt and uncertainty on the reliability or bona fides of that authority. So let's leave this entire matter at the state of impasse to which the dialectic has driven it. 108.14.212.113 (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- SIGH! You are missing the point. I could not possibly care less about Alexander the Great in this context; either you have proper reliable sources or you don't. If you do (and I assume you do) then the point is if the rest of you have consensus, then READ THE WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES and WP:MOS and learn how to put in something to the article PROPERLY -- It's not my job to wade through the above wall of text because it's either WP:V or it's not. It's YOUR job to edit properly. So go for it, I'm not stopping you. Montanabw(talk) 01:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- And I am not going to do your work for you. Dr. K removed your original edit, not me. There are two factors here; verifiability and style. I shall defer to Dr. K on verifiability and correctness, if you two agree on that point (as I have no time or a particular drive to independently research the issue), then what was needed was a proper draft to be reviewed per WP:MOS and WP::V, but if no one wants to tackle it, then I guess it won't happen. Montanabw(talk) 03:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- And since, as you know, I already repeatedly furnished to Dr. K the revisions that he requested, as well as to you, earlier, at least, and Dr. K is now not willing even to try his hand at editing, given his perception that you are looking over his shoulder, "sitting in judgment from the sidelines," as he says, and despite his being an experienced editor, which I am not, I can conlude only that NO ONE who is best disposed to do so wants to facilitate the inclusion of the substantive additions I have proffered, and this even though you are also duty bound as an editor to weigh in on the substantive merits of the proposed edit, as Dr. K has elsewhere stated, and still continue to duck that issue. So we have a sort of "Mexican standoff." Let's leave it at that. 108.14.212.113 (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not stopping Dr. K, and I'm not stopping you. I merely reserve the right to edit wikipedia as well. If Xenophon influenced Alexander, then I have no problem mentioning it; just not the way it was originally proposed, which was filled with misspellings, bad citation and completely ignored WP:MOS. Learn to write for wikipedia and you will have no trouble from me, and that's what I've been saying all along. I've now recommended two or three times that you propose a readable draft, and you have not chosen to do so. So there is no "standoff," however much you would prefer a drama that makes you a martyr; just give it a try: ONE paragraph, about 4-5 sentences, proper spelling, grammar and punctuation, and proper formatting per WP:CITE and proper sources per WP:RS. Simple. Or don't. Your call, but time to quit jawing about it: as Nixon said to Eisenhower, either shit or get off the pot. Montanabw(talk) 19:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Pleased to read your erudite classical allusion about the "pot." The first person to resort to profanity in this sort of discussion is usually in the wrong, and he knows it. What you previously had written to me and to Dr. K, as well as the way you wrote it, WAS "wrong" -- and no amount of ex post facto attempt at clarification and revisionist history can erase your error, and the hostile climate, and distorted geometry of the situation that you engendered. I don't propose to MAKE myself into a "martyr" by setting myself up to be sniped at by you during the editing process. BTW, the former typos, which were corrected, and have not continued, really, really irk you, don't they? Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa, and QED. FIN 108.14.212.113 (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- See User talk page for detailed reasons why proposed edit regarding Alexander and Xenophon, despite its manifest substantive truth and supporting accurate and reliable citations, was in effect unilaterally barred by sole Wikipedia editor "montanabw," in conflict with editor "Dr. K," who acknowledged that he was effectively intimidated off the matter by montatanbw's conduct, and with would-be first time contributor Xenophon333, who long struggled, ultimately unsuccesfully, with "grace under difficult circumstances" according to Dr. K, to have the edit greenlighted in some recognizable form, as opposed to montanabw's preference: a grudging one line addition that was calculated to obscure the thematic significance of the point and diminish its relative value. 108.14.212.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Contrary to your typically misleading and deceptive statement of the facts, the record reflects that I worked collegially, agreeably, and extensively with Dr. K, until we had achieved something of value that even the likes of you had to accept as worthy of an edit addition to the article. But because of your actions, when in a personal attack that I noted at that time you slammed and demeaned our work product as "gibberish," etc., Dr. K suddenly abandoned any further participation in the editing process, saying all that the record shows he said about you, including the hostile "climate" and "distorted geometry" that you, that's right, you, had brought about by your conduct. Unlike Dr. K, apparently, I don't become intimidated so easily, and have continued to engage you and point out your errors in attitude and approach that have squelched further efforts in regards to this edit, especially given that you appear so hostile that only a one liner or so is justified in your view, thus substantially obscuring the thematic significance and relative value of the contribution. (That's one of the many reasons why I feel that neither I nor Dr. K could EVER produce anything satisfactory to you.) I know you would have been happier if I, like Dr. K, had just dropped out at the first sign of your abusive personal attacks, but as I have written to you before, this must be a new experience for you not to succeed in talking down to others and getting your way through intimidation. Perhaps you should examine your own state of mind in this matter and consider making an apology, or give it up. 20 August 2012 108.14.212.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Xenophon, please don't misunderstand my actions. There are many reasons for my departure from this debate but intimidation is definitely not one of them. I don't want to rehash these arguments except to reiterate that from my lengthy exchanges with you I grew to respect your eloquent arguments and your academic skills. I will try to clarify a few points, hoping that this discussion may end. Your edits in the beginning were technically challenged, something natural and to be expected from a new editor, commonly known as a newbie. Your comments in support of your edit however, once their technical imperfections were accounted for, were logical and consistent. I can understand your frustration when they were described as "gibberish". This description and other missteps, not necessarily from your side, set forth a dynamic whereby one contentious comment brought another in response and here we are still debating weeks after this section was originally started. I don't want to elaborate further because this may lead to more arguments and more wasted time. I came here despite my reservations at the invitation of the other involved editor. I am going to ask him/her to not pursue this any further in the hopes of ending this not-so-virtuous circle. I know you understand the merits of ending this without further fruitless recriminations and I hope you can assist me in achieving this goal. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dr. K, for your enlightened, fair, and constructive comments. Although I would have appreciated an acknowledgment from montanabw that he had indeed unfairly derided the earnest attempts of a newcomer, who was then working the best he could with you, as being "gibberish," I am willing to let the whole matter rest at this point, in light of your helpful intervention. Respectfully, Xenophon333 20 August 2012 108.14.212.113 (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Xenophon for your nice comments and for understanding. Out of respect for your efforts regarding your proposed edit, I will check for a suitable formulation and I will try to add it to the article as you had envisioned. Give me some time, I may have to ask a few friends, but I will try to do it for you. I will let you know. Take care and I hope you stick around. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Dr. K: That's most generous and large spirited. "And let us not be weary in well doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." Galatians 6:9 (KJV). If you do proceed, please don't overlook the additional substantive citation I found, which I believe to be reliable and authoritative, from the American Philological Association, 143rd Annual Meeting Paper Abstracts, "Learning Kingship in the Pages of Xenophon: Alexander the Great and the Literary and Historical Cyrus," by Jennifer Finn, at p. 1, para 2 ("...Alexander surely had knowledge of the Anabasis, which served at the very least as an obvious military inspiration, when one considers his march east across the Tigris (Green 1970))", which I had quite recently cited to montanabw in my "User talk" page. It expresses the kernel of the idea that I had originally sought to convey. As I had indicated, the cite is available on the Internet. In any event, thanks again for your devoted and continuing expression of interest. It speaks well of your genuine comittment to abstract scholarship per se, despite everything that has all too regrettably transpired...Xenophon333 21 August 2012 108.14.212.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, thank you again. I made already an enquiry mentioning your citation to a friend who is an expert. I'm just waiting for the reply. I will let you know but feel free to ask at any time. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am all too pleased to have a classics/Xenophon expert, which montanabw acknowleged several times he wasn't, apply his/her expertise in this field. I can only hope that he/she will not be overly committed to Alexander's (deserved) "the Great" moniker to appreciate that element of truth in the quote from Eunapius, whom I cited earlier, in which he boldly asserted that "Alexander the Great would never have become great if there had been no Xenophon." Xenophon 333 21 August 2012. 108.14.212.113 (talk)
- Dr. K: FYI, as you will recall: the other main source I would use is the Will Durant passage, including the quote: "The news of their [the 10,000's] exploit [in reaching the Sea at Trapezus travelling from central Mesopotamia] resounded proudly through old Hellas, and encouraged Philip [of Macedon, Alexander the Great's father], two generations later, to believe that a well-trained Greek force could be relied upon to defeat a Persian Army many times its size. Unwittingly, Xenophon opened the way for Alexander." Durant, Will, "The Story of Civilization, Vol. 2, at p. 528: The Life of Greece" (1939; 1969)(Electronically enhanced text 1994 World Library, Inc.)(Previously cited by me in the "Talk: Xenophon" page). Thanks much again for your concern. Xenophon333 21 August 2012 108.14.212.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I do not and never had a problem with appropriate, verifiable, and accurate edits to the article, particularly if done by an experienced editor who knows how to do it properly. If Dr. K can successfully verify the information to be added, and it is added properly, I don't have any problem with that, and the editors who focus on Ancient Greece are the ones to do so. As for anonymous IP 108, newbies, no matter how knowledgeable they think they are, still need to learn the rules of the game around here. Edit away. Montanabw(talk) 19:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, thank you again. I made already an enquiry mentioning your citation to a friend who is an expert. I'm just waiting for the reply. I will let you know but feel free to ask at any time. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Once more, you are engaging in an ad hominem personal attack of a gratuitous nature, again calling me a "dog" as a result of your reference to "newbies, no matter how knowledgeable they think they are" in which you hyperlink the Wikipedia article: "On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Dog," -- the very same article you cited previously when you (incorrectly) impugned my academic credentials as a Phi Beta Kappa -- making an ad hominem personal attack then, just as you are doing so now. (Incidentally, I'm making my annual Society Membership contribution today.) Remarkably, you did this, after I had agreed to terminate our colloquy pursuant to Dr. K's request, thereby re-initiating your sarcastic, mean-spirited, and wholly personal, not substantive because you can't, attacks on my solid scholarship for reasons best known to yourself. Moreover, my impeccable Will Durant quote added nothing of substance that you have not seen in the record before, absolutely verbatim. Yet you nonetheless chose this occasion to take again a swipe at my status as a first time contributor, all for no rational reason. It appears that you just can't contain yourself when it comes to attacking me personally. Perhaps your blood boils at the fact that my bona fide and correct contributions are possibly going to be incorporated into the article by reason of Dr. K's good offices. But shame on you anyway. As I have said at least twice before, your bullying, derogatory, and demeaning attitude and conduct, no matter how much you may have gotten away with it in the past with others, ENDS WITH ME. And, in any event, neither I (nor Dr. K) need your snide, and back-handed, permission to "Edit away." So, as you once told me to do, just "shut up" -- especially while Dr. K does what he can to rectify the effects of all your many uncalled for vindictive remarks that have resulted in what Dr. K called this editing "tragedy." 108.14.212.113 (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Xenophon, if I may interject here, I think this time you are off the mark. By linking to "In the internet nobody knows you are a dog" essay Montanabw linked to a humorous essay. I can't think of any way this may be construed as a personal attack. It is just a humorous interjection. Although I do understand that in a heated online debate the first thing to evaporate is, unfortunately, humour, Montana's reply was reasonable and as such I find no problem with it. In fact I find Montanabw's reply moderate and reassuring, therefore constructive. I know you are frustrated from this lengthy affair but now we can all see actually the light at the end of the tunnel. No need to rehash old points. Let's all make an effort to make the light at the end of the tunnel be truly a light and not an incoming train. To that end, Xenophon, please have some patience, I am working on the edit. But please let's just bring the temperature of the debate down. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Dr. K: I respect you and appreciate your constructive efforts. Moreover, I freely state that I have no further desire to engage in the colloquy with montanabw, but his citation to "On the Internet Nobody Knows you are a Dog " -- being the exact same article he previously cited when he directly challenged and ridiculed my academic credentials, saying he didn't believe that I was telling the truth about them, is no laughing matter and had no humorous intent whatsoever, but once again, a pejorative one, which this time, he sought to conceal, somewhat, by incorporating it through a hyperlink only. In any event, I was content to wait and watch this page for further word from you until I read montanabw's swipe at me, gratuitously re-telling me I "needed to learn the rules of the game around here," and citing the "Dog" article again. Nonetheless, for the sake of peace, I will endeavor to ignore all future writings of montanabw unless these are confined to the substantive merits of the edit that you are so graciously pursuing as best you can. 108.14.212.113 (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's October 6, 2012; any progress on the edit? I should hear something by now either way simply as a matter of respect. 108.14.212.113 (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is this how I am being paid back for making a commitment to help you? This is the problem with open-ended commitments. In the end noone is happy. Not the person who makes them, not the others who expect a resolution, especially when they activate a stopwatch instead of being patient. You must first realise this is volunteer work; as such there is WP:NODEADLINE. This makes me regret the time I actually promised you that I was going to assist you. I really don't need the aggravation, especially when you read into this matter things that are not relevant, such as respect. That's a pretty big concept and I would really ask you not to throw it around especially at people who in good faith are trying to help you. In fact I will turn this right around by telling you that you could have shown respect for my effort by not raising the issue of respect as regards to the elapsed time. If you really trusted me you would not have raised this issue, at least not this way. You could have phrased your enquiry in a myriad of non-insulting, respectful ways but you did not. That is unfortunate. My historian friend was busy and so was I. It's as simple as that. But that's wiki-reality unfortunately. In addition this is not a simple edit and I am not a historian. I have to be able to consult someone who is, so as to avoid original research, but I haven't been able to find anyone as of yet. But if you don't trust me or are too eager for results this is not going to work. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) Don't blame ME for asking about the status after a month +. That's not a personal attack on you! My inquiry was entirely professional, polite and reasonable. Your response was ballistic and frenzied. All you needed to say is that your friend is still tied up -- rather than subject me to a tirade of opprobrium merely for inquring as to the status of the editing process after the Labor Day holiday. You seem to be saying: "how dare I ask about the status of the matter" -- and I am saying: "how dare you subject me to vindictive recrimination for asking about the status of the edit after this passage of time." Let any objective reader decide who is in the right... (Personal attack removed) All I did was ask, in a businesslike manner (Personal attack removed) as to status of the editing process, one way or the other. (Personal attack removed) BTW, when would it be acceptable to you for me to inquire again about the status of the matter; would three months hence be OK ? 108.14.212.113 (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed your personal attacks and I will not issue you a warning at your talkpage to avoid escalating the tension. I also inform you that I withdraw from any further association with this matter. I don't need to subject myself to this any further. If you need further help please ask at WP:RSN to seek the advice of the volunteers there regarding the reliability of your sources. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) Don't blame ME for asking about the status after a month +. That's not a personal attack on you! My inquiry was entirely professional, polite and reasonable. Your response was ballistic and frenzied. All you needed to say is that your friend is still tied up -- rather than subject me to a tirade of opprobrium merely for inquring as to the status of the editing process after the Labor Day holiday. You seem to be saying: "how dare I ask about the status of the matter" -- and I am saying: "how dare you subject me to vindictive recrimination for asking about the status of the edit after this passage of time." Let any objective reader decide who is in the right... (Personal attack removed) All I did was ask, in a businesslike manner (Personal attack removed) as to status of the editing process, one way or the other. (Personal attack removed) BTW, when would it be acceptable to you for me to inquire again about the status of the matter; would three months hence be OK ? 108.14.212.113 (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is this how I am being paid back for making a commitment to help you? This is the problem with open-ended commitments. In the end noone is happy. Not the person who makes them, not the others who expect a resolution, especially when they activate a stopwatch instead of being patient. You must first realise this is volunteer work; as such there is WP:NODEADLINE. This makes me regret the time I actually promised you that I was going to assist you. I really don't need the aggravation, especially when you read into this matter things that are not relevant, such as respect. That's a pretty big concept and I would really ask you not to throw it around especially at people who in good faith are trying to help you. In fact I will turn this right around by telling you that you could have shown respect for my effort by not raising the issue of respect as regards to the elapsed time. If you really trusted me you would not have raised this issue, at least not this way. You could have phrased your enquiry in a myriad of non-insulting, respectful ways but you did not. That is unfortunate. My historian friend was busy and so was I. It's as simple as that. But that's wiki-reality unfortunately. In addition this is not a simple edit and I am not a historian. I have to be able to consult someone who is, so as to avoid original research, but I haven't been able to find anyone as of yet. But if you don't trust me or are too eager for results this is not going to work. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
To all scholars of classical times
How come the title states that he born on 430 BC, and the first paragraph says that most scholars agree that he was born around 421 BC? Bbeehvh 19:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. You can change it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Born 455-399 BC; Died 354?
This side-panel dating allows for Xenophon having lived possibly 99 years. Is that reasonable? (EnochBethany (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC))
- It seems that we are still not know the exact time of Xenophon's living and death, because I have seen several versions of this issue. The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon (CUP, 2017) noted that he was born in a year between 430 and 425, and died in 'ca.350', i.e., aged 75-80. I think a timeline for his life and works should be added to this page, I'm really looking for this, but which version of this chronology should we admit is a essential but still debatable issue. (Radium7556 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC))
Which first; chicken or egg?
c. 484 BC - 425 BC is the Wiki date for the life of Herodotus. Yet I saw a scholarly article debating whether Herodotus wrote in 414 or 426. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/631367?sid=21105982898833&uid=3739920&uid=3739256&uid=2129&uid=4&uid=70&uid=2 Who contradicted whom? Who wrote about Kyros first? It looks like it is not known who was born first, but it appears that Xenophon lived a long time after the death of Herodotus. I think the article should say Xenophon contradicted Herodotus, not vice versa. (EnochBethany (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC))
Pronunciation
Is Xenophon really pronounced as /ˈzɛnəfən/ and not just /ˈzɛnəfɒn/? Seems odd to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Original Research
ResolvedSome of this looks like original research. Can we get citations for: Xenophon's "entire works are extant" and that Xenophon has "long been associated with the opposition of democracy"? Also, some of the sections on Socrates are only from a single source.
Per the user Andrew Lancaster's requests on my talk page, I will remove the original research tag unless someone else thinks it's necessary. --GoldCoastPrior (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Very good questions. Just on procedure, what about putting {{cn}} tags at those exact sentences?
- The first comment sounds right to me, and we'll probably find it looking in prefaces of works, or in works containing notes on classical authors. Will look.
- On the second one I had a quick flash and ran to my bookshelf. In this book, I found a comment in the preface (by Gray), page 19. "Xenophon has been called undemocratic in more contexts than can be mentioned".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- This seems to cover the first concern. The Landmark edition (Strassler ed.) of Xenophon's Hellenika. In the preface Strassler writes (xxi), "Fifteen works were transmitted through antiquity under Xenophon's name, and fortunately all fifteen have come down to us".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Looks great, thanks! And you're right about the procedural question. --GoldCoastPrior (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- This seems to cover the first concern. The Landmark edition (Strassler ed.) of Xenophon's Hellenika. In the preface Strassler writes (xxi), "Fifteen works were transmitted through antiquity under Xenophon's name, and fortunately all fifteen have come down to us".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Anti-democratic?
I've read Anabasis and Hellenica, and there were no political views expressed by the author.
I'm utterly surprised, at least as far as these two books are concerned, that, according to the article, Xenophon is anti-democratic.
100.35.33.88 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The reason for this is presumably is his "hero-worship" (Forrest) for the Spartan system which most would agree is non-democratic.
Manifest Truth (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Xenophon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040805114940/http://www.liv.ac.uk:80/~gjoliver/xenophon.html to http://www.liv.ac.uk/~gjoliver/xenophon.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Xenophon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040603082017/http://isidore-of-seville.com:80/small/10.html to http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/small/10.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)