Talk:Laconic phrase

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 06:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging
I agree with the merging. My Famous Example is copy-pasted from the source, so it shall replace the "blot out the sun" (which may be given as a popular later variant). David Latapie (✒ | @) 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I donnot agree with the merge. If u were merging it why create this word? No Sense at all

Examples
I think there are far too many examples on this page, most of which are not really Laconic. They ought to express an idea or a more complicated thought with very few words. 'Nuts' means nothing more than that, and implies nothing more than that. Conversely, the Philip II example efficiently conveys an opinion and attitude with one word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.194.156 (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. See nuts. DCDuring (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Philip II case, the brevity is achieved by referring back to the preceding threatening statement, a device that is not characteristic of Laconic phrases in general. While it may represent an extreme example, it's not a very representative one. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the article would be better named "Quotes attributed to the Spartans"?--SkiDragon (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What would that achieve? -- Scottie_theNerd  13:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because not everything the Spartans said was "Laconic", like the poster above mentioned.--SkiDragon (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And not every laconic phrase was from the Spartans. This article is about the concept of "laconic phrases", not "Spartan phrases". I presume you were referring to the anonymous editor 129.97; in which case he or she did not specify anything about Spartans, only that most of the phrases in the current list are not considered "laconic" based on definition. The purpose in cleaning up the article is to remove items which do not belong, not change the article to cover a different topic. -- Scottie_theNerd  03:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he was being sarcastic; much of the article reads like 300-fanboy nonsense. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Spartans peculiar culture makes many of their proudest expressions primarily examples of bravado and asceticism rather than terseness and wit. The meaning of Laconism has drifted from the classical sense which included those other Spartan attributes to something that now is something more like "terse witticism". DCDuring (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please rewrite
Not a bad article, and certainly a relevant one, but painful to read. The reader is drowned in gratuitous information. If you feel up to it you'd make me eternally grateful. Maikel (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The information is gratuitous only if you don't want to understand the context of the examples, and in that case you're probably not very interested in the subject to begin with. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Viking equivalent?
Is it just me, or does viking, and by extension nordic, culture have an equivalent? I just can't remember the name of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.89.250 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Drowning in examples
The article, as it currently stands, is a short descriptive paragraph followed by a horde of examples, many of which don't seem to fit the criteria mentioned in the body of the article. I recommend pruning all but a few of the examples. If no one objects, I'll go through and do it when I have time.--Aervanath (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you may be missing a joke- Deus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.94.147 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could start by listing the examples you find inappropriate, and explain why. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As an alternative, if you think the examples are inappropriate or otherwise of poor quality, see if you can find better ones. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The list should be moved over to Wiki-quote and linked. An example or two here would be fine, but this is crazy. And, yeah, some of the examples are not all that great - there's supposed to be a pithiness to the phrase as well as brevity. I'll see if I can get to it tonight. Matt Deres (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This article could certainly be made a bit more. . . wait for it. . . laconic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.181.67 (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the entire section on "Other historical examples" should be deleted (with the possible exception of some of the Greek and Roman examples if they actually are laconic, not just clever).
 * Who says it's laconic? Unless a WP:RS says it's "laconic," it shouldn't go in.
 * Most of it violates WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Nbauman (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Cut!
TCO (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What don't you like?
My word web says it's defined as "Brief and to the point". Perhaps we can reach a consensus of what is not appropriate for this article. List the quotes you think are wrong, and perhaps we can agree on something...Smarkflea (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Laconic means pithy, not "of Laconia". Capisce?  TCO (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I said "Brief and to the point", which is pretty much Pithy...Smarkflea (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your definition is correct, but the page examples are awry. Point has been made already in this talk page. Many of the sayings are more descriptive of the Spartan stoicism (which is admirable for its own reasons), then pithy remarks. Think how WELL the "if story" emplifies a Laconic phrase. Similarly the Abdul Azziz story (where just the greeting suffices and no message is even needed). P.s. The list is also missing a famous story of how some other city asked for help from the Spartans and they criticized the messanger for being verbose, so he recomposed the message. Find that story as it totally shows what Laconic is about.


 * From my perspective, all of the Spartan examples, while not equally short, display to some degree the blunt and pithy qualities characteristic of Spartan speech, if you think about them. Some of them also illustrate relevant aspects of Spartan history, philosophy and culture, which I think is useful because Spartan speech patterns did not arise out of a vacuum. I think it would be a mistake to try to prune the Spartan list down to only the shortest statements.
 * Some of the non-Spartan examples are questionable. The puns (by Charles Napier and Samuel Beckett), while representing 2 of the more brief and clever replies, may not fit in, because as far as I'm aware punning was not characteristic of Spartans. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Long Lengthy Examples
The page on Laconic terseness is decidedly lacking it. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but to suggest that an article on Laconic terseness should embody the same quality itself is nonsensical. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "Peccavi" (I have sinned/Sindh) used by General Charles Napier in a telegram to British military leaders after his nineteenth-century capture of the Pakistani city of Sindh?50.10.99.70 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a pun, which is why that example is listed under bilingual puns. I removed it from the list of non-Spartan examples of a Laconic phrase for that reason. Even though it is short, I would not view it as a good example of Laconic speech (the Spartans weren't known for punning). WolfmanSF (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Examples in media
What does everyone think about adding some examples in media (literature, TV, film, etc.), including fiction or non-fiction? An example that comes to mind is the TV series Spartacus. I am not sure if this is strictly laconic in style (?). Do statements like the following fit the laconic style addressed in this article?: "When has son denied father?" / "Man of ambition is capable of anything." / "I will not die faceless slave forgotten by history." / "This is but glorious beginning." (see: this article for more background) --Thorwald (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with adding examples from fiction is that there are innumerable possible choices, and few if any of them stand out as being especially noteworthy. The article has already been described as "drowning in examples" as it is. It's probably better if we stick to history. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Greek script
I feel that it is very inappropriate not to have the corresponding Greek phrase for each English translation in an article entitled "Laconic phrase". I would suggest that all examples that are not derived from Greek phrases be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.122.90 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should remove them, I think we should add the Greek (or Latin, for those that only survive in Latin sources). --Nbauman (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Gorgo's comment on why only Spartan women can rule men
Here are several translations, with links, of Gorgo's reply to the question of why only Spartan women can rule men:


 * From the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1931 Being asked by a woman from Attica, "Why is it that you Spartan women are the only women that lord it over your men," she said, "Because we are the only women that are mothers of men."


 * From the Poetry Foundation Asked by a woman from Attica, “Why is it you Spartan women are the only ones who govern men?” she replied, “We’re the only ones who give birth to them.”


 * From AncientGreekBattles.net When asked by a woman from Attica: 'Why are you Spartan women the only ones who can rule men?', she said: 'Because we are also the only ones who give birth to men.'

There are various other translations, but the point is that the position of women in Spartan society was much more equal than elsewhere in Ancient Greece. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Overly long list of quotes
The list of quotes in the article seems excessively long. In addition, the sources for the non-Spartan examples are reliable sources for the quotes being accurate, but do not seem to back up the claim that they are "laconic phrases". (Not to mention the fact that almost all the Spartan examples are sourced to Plutarch, which makes their justifications as laconic overly reliant on one source.) In general, the list seems somewhat indiscriminate in that it seems to lack clear criteria for what makes them "laconic phrases". --V2Blast (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Plutarch is in fact the main source we have for Spartan quotes, so being "overly reliant" on him is unavoidable, unless we're going to have a very short list of examples. As to whether the list is "excessively long", that is a judgement call based in part on one's level of interest in the subject. Given that we've had over 160,000 page views in the last 6 months, I'd say the general level of interest is high. The only criterion for inclusion is being a notable or interesting example of a laconic phrase, based on the definition of "laconic". Realistically, there are not a lot of sources out there that state, "This is a non-Spartan example of a laconic phrase." One might argue with the inclusion of some of the non-Spartan examples, but rather than reduce the list to one that is based on the judgement of one or a few editors, I've tried to allow a diverse set of contributors to participate. However, if there are particular examples you object to, or if you have suggestions for better examples, please let us know. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The essence of laconism
The lead currently defines a laconic phrase as "a concise or terse statement". Though brevity is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient. For example, telegraphic brevity ("Sighted sub, sank same"), punning ("Peccavi"), and concise mottos ("La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas") don't sound laconic to me. Here is what some reliable sources say: What these definitions have in common is a sense of bluntness, insolence, or sarcasm. Another element seems to be ellipsis or indirectness: The closest modern word would be "snarky". Just think of Lycurgus's "So that we may always have something to offer." He realizes that small sacrifices seem cheap, but he pretends that he is thinking of the future, and also implicitly saying that his interlocuter's city is living beyond its means by offering lavish sacrifices. Note also that most (though not all) of the 'classic' examples of laconic phrases are rejoinders to questions. Now it is certainly true that the word is often used more loosely, but this is an encyclopedia article talking about the concept, not a dictionary article talking about usage. I'll make some edits to the article and look forward to other editors' comments. --Macrakis (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "A person or thing is laconic that is characterized by such succinctness as to seem curt, brusque, unperturbed, or mystifying" (synonym group: terse, succinct, summary, pithy, compendious) -- Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms
 * "which is concise or sententious, dry and sarcastic" -- Simon Kerl, Elements of Composition and Rhetoric (1869)
 * (contrasting with conciseness) "...Laconic expresses an affected conciseness, which springs not from desire to do justice to the expression, but from some peculiarity or sentiment of the speaker, who wishes to avoid the smallest waste of words upon the subject or the person addressed. Conciseness is a proof of regard, laconism of disregard. So that it is associated not only with brevity but with bluntness...." -- Henry Percy Smith, Synonyms Discriminated (1904)
 * "The Laconic style...admits the frequent use of ellipsis" A. Layres, Belles-Lettres (1867)
 * I agree that punning was not characteristic of the Spartans. However, when I removed the example in question, it reappeared so frequently that I gave up trying to eliminate it. While bluntness is a basic feature of laconic remarks, sarcasm (mocking someone by saying the opposite of what you mean) is not; it is completely absent in the Spartan examples. I would say that the quality of "pithiness" is also important, at least in the actual Spartan examples, and this quality is not captured by "snarky". WolfmanSF (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting we use the word "snarky" in the article, but a common feature of the classic laconic phrases is what Smith summarizes as "Conciseness is a proof of regard, laconism of disregard", that is, disrespect for the questioner. Agreed about sarcasm. Pithiness is certainly important. How would you capture that beyond my current suggested language "a concise or terse statement, especially a blunt and elliptical rejoinder"? "If", for example, is certainly terse (one word!), blunt and disrespectful (Philip, you think you can invade Laconia?), and elliptical. --Macrakis (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "blunt" does suggest some degree of disregard (it certainly does't imply politeness), so that may be enough in the intro. The second sentence can perhaps be modified to mention "pithy" and to have "sarcastic" removed. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume the military radio/telegraphic examples were added because of the parallel to the Spartan example from the battle of Cyzicus. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Uses
Section currently reads:
 * A laconic phrase may be used for efficiency (as in military jargon), for philosophical reasons (especially among thinkers who believe in minimalism, such as Stoics), or for better disarming a long, pompous speech (the most famous example being at the Battle of Thermopylae).

The first two seem to be talking about concision, not laconicity. They are missing the core defiance expressed by a laconic remark. Laconic remarks in a military context (molon lave, "if") are not efficient, but defiant. This section needs to be completely reworked. --Macrakis (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how central "defiance" really is in laconic speech; that only comes into play when someone is interacting with a rival of some sort, and such examples may be selectively recorded and repeated. However, this is absent from many of the examples recorded by Plutarch. "Disrespect" comes closer to being a core feature but is not always present. Also, I think the first part of the section has some validity; Spartans' blunt speed was the product of a very militarized society. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The first section of the article talks about a laconic response being used to disarm a long and pompous speech, with "The most famous example being the Battle of Thermopolae". There are several quotes from the battle of Thermopolae in the many (and excessive) examples, but none of them seem to in response to a long pompous speech. Can we include the reference/example, or remove the phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.144.208 (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is in reference to the "Molon labe" example, and you are correct in pointing out that Xerxes himself did not make a "long and pompous speech" at the scene (although his negotiators may have done so), as he was not present, so this section should be revised. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Complaining about number of examples
Before complaining about the number of examples, one should remember that the Spartan quotations handed down to us through history represent the sole origin of the term "laconic". If you're not interested in these examples, you're not interested in the subject. Whether the non-Spartan examples are essential may be debated, but based on contributions to the article, there is clear interest in having them there. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Laconic humor and Australia
An editor has recently added the claim that "Australia is often cited as a modern stronghold of such humor". A quick Google Books search shows that lots of groups of people are famous for their laconic humor: I don't think Australia has a unique claim here. Perhaps something like the book National styles of humor would be a reliable source for a claim like that. But sadly the only thing it qualifies as laconic is the Australian accent (whatever that means). --Macrakis (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Americans (as contrasted with the English)
 * American cowboys (try searching for laconic and Wyoming or Montana)
 * people from Maine (and Vermont, like Calvin Coolidge)
 * people from the North Country of England


 * "Recently" as in about 4 years ago. I think we could consider also mentioning New England, American cowboys and rural northern England if further sources substantiate those claims. I don't think that saying American humor is more laconic than English humor is quite the same as saying it is laconic per se. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the "recently".
 * As I said above, I don't think Australia has a unique claim; on the other hand, I'm not sure we can find a reliable source that compares national or regional senses of humor. Perhaps someone can check out the book I mention above. --Macrakis (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW, "laconic" appears in the first paragraph of the Australian comedy article, as well as in History of Australia. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Example cruft
Under the essay for avoiding example cruft (which does not constitute Wikipedia policy), it is suggested that "One, or at most a few examples about the subject matter under discussion, should suffice." That presupposes that the subject matter can be well conveyed by descriptive text, and that the examples are just icing on the article's cake. That's not really true of this subject; the recorded Spartan examples gave rise to the concept, and only the Spartan examples truly convey the actual characteristics of the subject. They have also been chosen to in a sense tell Sparta's story, one that has great cultural significance, which is probably why the article is widely viewed (17,000 views in the last 30 days). It is suggested in the essay, "Where the list of examples as a whole has verifiable cultural significance, consider creating a separate article." I suppose we could change the article to "List of examples of a laconic phrase", or split the list of examples off from the short introduction, but would would accomplish nothing very constructive. We've been through several iterations of this discussion, with the same outcome every time. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For starters, please don't remove tags until the discussion is finished. All your arguments are valid, with some caveats.
 * "in a sense tell Sparta's story" - this is original research: here the story is told by a wikipedian, who cherry-picked the examples to "tell the story", i.e., this is essentially a wikipedian's opinion on what this troy should be.
 * "verifiable cultural significance" means that we must have WP:RS which
 * (a) describe a particular phrase as 'Laconic" and
 * (b) assert its cultural significance,
 * otherwise, again, this would be original research.


 * Therefore the examples must be reviewed keeping this in mind. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that you realize that sources stating that this or that quote has cultural significance are rare or nonexistant, so you're asking for the impossible here, which is not reasonable. However, the cultural significance of the general subject of Spartan culture and history, to which these quotes are closely tied, is beyond dispute. Nor do sources commonly state that a quote is an example of a laconic phrase. Given that "laconic phrase" has a simple definition that can be understood by most people, demanding an authoritative cited source to substantiate that a given quote is laconic is also unreasonable. Cherry-picking examples to argue for a controversial point might be original research, but no point is stated or implied here. You cannot describe picking the most suitable illustrative examples among a large category as OR. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that you realize that the phrases " sources stating that this or that quote has cultural significance" and "assert cultural significance" are not the same. If multiple reliable source discuss the phrase in scholarly setting, then significance is asserted. And yes absolutely we have to have sources which say it is a laconic phrase, because, yes, this simple definition s well understood, but not in the same way by various people. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Scholarly sources seldom if ever discuss such quotes. They seldom if ever say "x" is a laconic phrase. Why not? Because identifying a laconic phrase is a trivial exercise. Again, you are asking for the impossible. Note that the above essay stated "... the list of examples as a whole..." [emphasis mine] should have cultural significance. No one is going to question the cultural significance of our list of Spartan quotes. The essay said nothing about proving that each particular example has cultural significance. That would be unreasonable. The whole concept of "reasonableness" seems lost on you. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are dubious. "seldom if ever discuss", then wikipedia does not either. And so on. And I am not asking impossible. I am asking to follow wikipedia rules, this is what seems is lost on you. The concept of "laconic phrase" is well known and I find it unbelievable no scholar in rhetoric ever gave prominent examples of laconism. Please don't confuse wikipedian's ignorance with lack of information. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A list of examples is not a discussion. Where do Wikipedia rules demand that every choice of an example be vetted by an expert source? You are simply making that up. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All information in wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources. This is the most fundamental policy of English Wikipedia, and sorry, nobody cannot talk out of it. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, in theory, but in order to apply the policy in practice, you need to understand what needs to be verified, and that falls far short of everything. Yes, the definition of "laconic phrase" needs to be verified. Examples provided that fit that definition should have a source citation, but it is nonsensical to require that they also have a citation stating that they are laconic. I could provide endless illustrations of this. In the article on split infinitives, you would not need a citation to prove that every example you provide really is a split infinitive. That would be absurd. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, our policy is quite flexible, but at the same time quite strict with what is to be verified: anything which was questioned must be verified. Not every quip should be called "laconic". For example, " "By remaining poor, and each man not desiring to possess more than his fellow." I would call a wisecrack, but hardly a model laconic phrase, especially compared to the classic "With it or on it", or, as clarified for "non-spartans" : "With the shield of on it".  Staszek Lem (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So what are you driving at? You want to be the arbiter of which examples stay and which go? WolfmanSF (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I don't want to be the arbiter of anything. I want to make sure all wikipedia articles I edit follow wikipedia rules. If I express a doubt, you have to resolve it with the help of reliable sources. If you cannot, sorry, tough luck. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the previously mentioned example, "By remaining poor, and each man not desiring to possess more than his fellow", I contend that it is not a wisecrack (I'm not sure you understand this term), but it is laconic; it is both pithy and concise (although not as blunt as some of the others). Your preferred example, "With it or on it" achieves greater brevity in part because the context allows much to be left unsaid, which is not true of all laconic remarks.
 * Regarding your contention that "If I express a doubt, you have to resolve it with the help of reliable sources" please cite the policy you are referring to. Do you claim to have some authority beyond that of an ordinary Wikipedian? If the doubt arises from a deficiency in your ability to understand and apply a definition, I'm not sure I agree with you. Anyway, my impression is that Wikipedia is built on consensus. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the policy is WP:V, and this is the most basic policy, crafted with the consensus of the whole wikipedia commonuty, which cannot be overridden by any local talk page consensus. I don't claim any authority beyond an ordinary wikipedian, who demands you follow the rules. Now, what is your authority to override our policies? I have already cited this policy and I see you are still not aware of the very basics of WP:V; please read it carefully ASAP, otherwise we will continue going in circles. If something is unclear, please ask questions in its talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already pointed out the flaw in your argument. WP:V does not apply to everything. It would not apply to the result of an arithmetic calculation, because any reader who understands arithmetic can verify the result himself. Similarly, anyone who understands the simple definition of a laconic phase can judge himself whether it is applicable in a given example (obviously, there is a potential for shades of gray here). It is most definitely desirable to have a citation to confirm that a quote is not made up (and the article is missing that citation in a few cases). But classifying a quote as a laconic phrase is not making something up. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the previously mentioned example, yes, it is an ordinary wisecrack, not especially concise (even for a wisecracks). And not especially smart. History showed, already at these times, that poor are ripe to be enslaved. If you disagree, please provide a reference that this phrase is "laconic" in modern sense. My "preferred example" is one for which plenty of references exist which say it is a laconic phrase. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you don't understand either his remark, "wisecrack", or both. Most definitely it is not a wisecrack; it was completely serious and not intended to be witty or humorous. And it is consistent with subsequent Spartan culture, where "conspicuous display of wealth appears to have been discouraged." If you think it wasn't smart, then how did Spartans with their relatively simple lifestyle become the preeminent military power of ancient Greece? WolfmanSF (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, what Lycurgus meat by "remaining poor" was not being destitute, but not conspicuously accumulating material wealth in a manner that would arouse the envy and greed of others, specifically foreign armies that might be interested in spoils. And how to curb the impulse to accumulate material wealth? By not basing social status on material wealth; that is what he means by "each man not desiring to possess more than his fellow". There's nothing remotely stupid about this reply, and it's about as pithy as you can get. It represents an ideal that Sparta tried with some success to follow. All this would be obvious if you were familiar with the subject. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There are zillions of puns, quips, famous quotes, of various types; we don't collect them all into wikipedia; why Spartans are preferred in this respect? Why not collect all witticisms of, say, Cicero? Answer: examples are, you know, examples. And they must be chosen wisely. E.g., when scholarly sources pick some of them as examples.

Now, quite a few of them are referred to apophthegmata laconica. First, this is basically a primary source (and they actually belong in Wikisource). Second, Plutarch recorded hundreds of them, with only several listed here. For them, there is neither secondary source, nor comment on their historical significance. For example, "With it or on it!" is a "canonic laconic". However I have never heard of ""You seem not to realize that your proposal is the same as fighting fifty wolves after defeating a thousand sheep." being described as a "laconic" i.e., a terse wisecrack. It is a wisecrack, yes, but I doubt it is a good example of terseness. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I will review more later. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is obviously not a wisecrack; it is a pithy, blunt and brief reply - all hallmarks of a laconic remark. He could have given a speech about why this was a foolish proposal.


 * So, are you suggesting that any selection of "most appropriate" examples from a large selection of possible choices represents original research? Note, those examples were not all picked by one Wikipedian, and they have been subject to feedback from other Wikipedians.


 * Why are Spartans preferred in terms of collections of quotes? They were preferred in the ancient world, and that tradition has been maintained for several thousand years. Maybe that has something to do with their cultural significance as one of the major city-states of ancient Greece, a small area that made outsize contributions to Western civilization. As well as their distinctive verbal style, which has given rise to the term "laconic". WolfmanSF (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "wisecrack (plural wisecracks) A witty or sarcastic comment or quip."  - nevermind my choice of words.
 * re: "they have been subject to feedback from other Wikipedians." -- irrelevant. What relevant is see above.
 * re: "Why are Spartans preferred " -- I know why; it was not about them. My point is that Cicero was just as famous for his says, but he doesn't have nowhere long list of his quotes in WP. (BTW Plutarch is severely incomplete). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I doubt if anyone would object to a list of quotes from Cicero in Wikipedia, or a longer list of quotes from Cicero or Plutarch's Laconic Apophthegms in Wikiquote. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, quotes do belong to Wikiquote and there is a special template wikiquote to bring in all quotes to Wikipedia, not just handpicked ones, just like we use commons to bring in all pictures related to some article; see Cicero for an example. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, quotes do belong in Wikiquote, but that doesn't mean they don't also belong in Wikipedia. I don't think Wikiquote could have a collection comparable to this special-purpose one all in one place. Adding a few quotes of Cicero to illustrate some point in his Wikipedia article would be reasonable, because going through all the quotes of his in Wikiquote would be a chore. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If a quote is to the point and its usage to illustrate this point comes from WP:RS, then of course one may use it. Otherwise it is WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laconic phrase. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20090218081550/http://e-classics.com/index.html to http://www.e-classics.com/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent example
I hesitate to add this myself when there's concern about excessive examples, but if we wanted a particularly recent one (more so than the Korean War), there's a good one in this article:
 * When one Twitter user called Scott a "house n" last year, after his vote to confirm Sessions, he tweeted back a one-word reply: "Senate."

--BDD (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's best we avoid all examples from social media, since there are such a huge number of such examples possible; to add one would probably be opening a can of worms. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Quotations
In Wikipedia articles may include several quotations, as illustrative examples for encyclopedic content. The proper storage for collections of quotations is Wikiquote, to which a prominent link is provided in articles where prominent quotations are expected. See eg. at the bottom of "Albert Einstein" page. We do not list all Einstein quips in his bio, do we? Same here. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, I agree. However, I think that we can apply the guidelines flexibly, and that this article is a special case. I will explain in more detail soon. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So...? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between the Albert Einstein article and the Laconic phrase article? In the Einstein article, as in all biographical articles, and in virtually all other Wikipedia articles, quotes are peripheral to the content, and too many would be out of place and disruptive. In the Laconic phrase article, quotes are central to the subject. The whole concept of "laconic" is based on famous Spartan quotes that have been passed down to us through history. A mere definition or description of the term "laconic" does not capture the flavor of those examples, which many people find striking and memorable.
 * Additionally, the speech patterns of ancient Spartans did not arise out of a vacuum. They are related to the history, society and customs of ancient Sparta, topics of considerable cultural significance for Western civilization. The collection of Spartan quotes chosen, and the many links provided within, provide much insight into these subjects.
 * This cultural significance is the likely reason for the popularity of the article. It has received 752,114 pageviews since 1 July 2015, a rate of 664/day. That means that in the period of ~10 years since we've had a long list of examples in the article, we've had millions of page views. During that period, there have been few if any complaints about the number of examples from contributing editors, or from readers interested in the subject.
 * As for placement in Wikiquotes (which is a good idea) being an adequate substitute for having these quotes in the article, that is debatable. Wikiquotes is a much less visible and visited resource than Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main page receives on the order of 16 million hits per day; Wikiquotes gets more like 16 thousand. It is unlikely that more than a small fraction of readers of the Wikipedia article will notice and follow the Wikiquotes link. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"'Sorry, you cannot make a drastic edit like that and undo years of effort without discussion. " - Your edit summary indicates that you must read and understand WP:OWN and WP:3RR. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In general, drastic changes are discussed before being implemented, in a manner that is respectful of other editors' contributions. That practice was not followed here. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is not special. You can have maybe a half-dozen Spartan examples to give a user an overview and then a half-dozen or so non-Spartan to show how it has been used in different contexts but several dozen quotations on a topic is literally the function of Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Special case" in this context means "highly atypical", i.e., an outlier. That is clearly true of this article. I can't think of another Wikipedia article for which quotes are similarly important. The issue here is not what is appropriate for Wikipedia articles in general, but what is best for this specific article. Rules and guidelines in Wikipedia are almost always flexible, and the most important criterion is what content is most beneficial for the readers of a given article. This point has been emphasized as one of the pillars of Wikipedia. I have argued above that the Spartan examples are highly relevant and beneficial. The non-Spartan examples would probably be viewed as less essential, but they do provide illustrations of both the parallels and differences between the two classes. In my view, the three main sections of the article (introduction, Spartan examples, and non-Spartan examples) all complement and enhance each other.
 * Are there any practical disadvantages of having the long lists? They do make the layout of the article look odd. Other than that, I don't see any. The previous version of the article was not overly long. The lists come after the introductory content and do not impair the experience of readers mainly interested in the latter. The length of the lists has been fairly stable for a number of years, and maintaining this situation has not required a large editorial effort. Nor has this article served as a bad example that inspires editors to create inappropriate lists in other articles. Is there some problem I haven't thought of? WolfmanSF (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there any particular reason why we cannot follow the typical Wikipedia procedure of discussing the drastic change to the article before actually making the change? I haven't heard one so far. It's a little awkward from my perspective to participate in a discussion when it looks like the outcome of the discussion has been prejudged. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Three editors are telling you that quote lists beyond typical examples belong to Wikiquote. The outcome is "prejudged" simply because you failed to present any valid arguments in your favor whatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is the third editor? You waited less than a day for my response. I am a fairly busy person and I never said I was finished with the discussion. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Links to sister sites
This is a followup on discussion with User:WolfmanSF about my reasoning in removing the sister links to wikitionary and wikidata from the Laconic phrase article. It turns out that I misspoke in my edit comment--even though these links appear in the "See also" section, they're covered by WP:SISTER, not WP:EL; but the guideline is similar: it says that sister page links are encouraged when such links are likely to be useful to our readers. I would argue that the definition isn't useful because it covers information already in the lead paragraph of the article, and the wikidata entry is only useful to expert editors, not typical users.

Now, having explained my reasoning, I'm fine with the current state of the article. My main concern was increasing visibility for the wikiquote link, and this has been achieved by removing it from the sister links box. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, the Wiktionary definition corroborates some of the content of the article, and expert editors deserve consideration, so both links have some value. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Modern examples
Given the endless list of possible modern examples, I suggest we not add them to this article. A better alternative would be to add them to. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Note on translation
I've used a 1939 translation of Philip's famous threat as recorded by Plutarch. It might be unfamiliar because it isn't easy to translate into English. Sometimes you'll see "I will turn you out" or suchlike, sometimes it's more like "I will lay waste to your country" and really, both are good. The word ἀναστάτους means uprooted/exiled/driven out when used of people, and ruined/devastated/laid waste when used of a place, so when he says "I will make you ἀναστάτους" he might well be talking of the people and the place too. NebY (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)