Talk:Sparta/Archive 2

Source of Xenophon quote
Can somebody add the source of the Xenophon quote? I can't find it.

Removal of Referenced Material
Miskin, Please do not remove referenced material (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition) as you did by this edit NN 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is funny to see you quote Hobson "the 'superpower' contest between Athens and Sparta is equivalent to the recent cold war between USA and the USSR". Do you understand the nuances of the English language? If the authors put the word superpower within quotation marks, it is not a good idea to take it to mean that they think Athens and Sparta were superpowers. Familiarize yourself with the usage of quotation marks. NN 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your referenced material on the Battle of Leuctra is mentioned 5 lines below your edit. You can move your reference there if you want. Without changing the intro that is. Miskin 22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So did you find out what the use of quotation marks implies? NN 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not what you orignally researched :) - I have wanted to remove this for some time now. Miskin 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like you still don't understand what quotation marks mean. NN 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In British English single quotation marks have a very specific meaning, and it's not the one you think. Miskin 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You have no inkling as to what I think as I am not the one who referred to the text. I am not criticizing you for not understanding the meaning of the text you quoted, not everybody understands the nuances of English. However you should not persist after your error has been pointed out, it makes you look worse. NN 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really curious to see what you'll come up with next. Miskin 23:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your 'answer'. I will have to think 'hard' to come up with something as I am debating with such an 'expert'. NN 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious what the quotation marks are for. A superpower within today's definition would be an anachronism then because the entire world was not known. The quotation marks are to draw emphasis to that, but Sparta was that period's equivalent of a superpower. Nevertheless, it is sourced and shall not be removed until we get a few counter sources (NN's personal interpretation and opinion don't count). If you want to add the quotation marks to the text, unless I hear any good reasons why not, I will not object.--Domitius 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Quotation marks for 'emphasis', that's rich! NN 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well perhaps you could tell me who he's quoting or making fun of.--Domitius 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As you are the one offering this as the reference, shouldn't you be the one to answer that question? I understand you are saying that they are qualifying the use of the word superpower by quotation marks, and the reason for their qualification is that the idea of a superpower at that time was anachronistic. However without further reference this is highly speculative. Basically you are trying to interpret the quotation marks to salvage your use of this reference, even though the standard usage of quotation marks is to disown responsibility for using a word. As per standard usage they are saying that they do not consider Sparta or Athens to be superpowers. They may put the quotation marks to SPECIFICALLY INDICATE that they do not consider Sparta and Athens to be superpowers, even though they are comparing them to superpowers. This is the most standard interpretation of the sentence. NN 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources use the term, ergo so can Wikipedia. Beyond that I have nothing more to say. You can put your personal opinions on your blog or geocities page.--Domitius 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Or I could revert just like you did, no? NN 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference he vainly questions is not even linked to the article anymore. I don't think he's worth wasting any more time with, his latest argumentation on the "quotation marks" makes me feel silly to even think of a serious reply. The fact that he's a new user was an excuse in the beginning, but now it is no more. What he doesn't know is that his extensively disruptive editing has already caught admin attention. I've done my best so far, but I'll be fooling myself if I keep "assuming good faith" for such an "editor". Miskin 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a reference you yourself provided on this talk page and never withdrew. Also you have been proclaiming how CUP is a reliable source. NN 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is - no one is disputing this. You have no counter sources, so you've come up with this pathetic attempt to claim that the source doesn't say what it says (or appears to say).--Domitius 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius this argument, like most of his arguments so far, is just a pretext for making reverts. He invents new arguments against the edit every two days, although he has never fallen that low. Well, maybe I'm forgetting the one earlier tonight when he accused me for "removing a referenced comment" (alredy stated 5 lines below). In any case, I'm not going to enforce him continue underestimating other people's intelligence. Miskin 00:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Attention?
Miskin said "What he doesn't know is that his extensively disruptive editing has already caught admin attention." Wonder how it is possible that my activities could have caught "admin attention" without my knowing but with Miskin knowing? Or is it just another fantasy? NN 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus or RfC
To stop the perpetual reverts we need a consensus. If that is not possible I will start a RfC. NN 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * RFCs are a waste of time in my experience, however if you want to start one, feel free. I think it's advisable for you to make a set of offers. Obviously your current version is not consensual material so try adaptations of it (with reasons). I and Miskin are not unreasonable POV pushers (even though you may think that). Should that fail, try RFCs, Cabal Mediations, Formal Mediations, whatever you like.--Domitius 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "it's advisable for you to make a set of offers" So why exactly is it "advisable" for me rather than you to make the offers? NN 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because of the odds. This discussion seems to be primarily you against me and Miskin. I cannot make an offer on behalf of Miskin, can I? We do think independently even though we happen to agree that your versions thus far have been unsuitable (reasons specified above).--Domitius 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I have already made a major compromise by agreeing to leave the text calling Sparta able to "project power on a worldwide scale" in the article. There are other issues with this text including the meaning of the word "Classical times" (which stretches from 5 BCE to 5 AD) and "overpowering" that I have not yet got into. So I believe that moving the text to within the article is a suitable compromise. NN 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If "overpowering" is your problem then you can change it to "defeated at war", which reflects the same historical factuality in more words. But do not add your POV as you normally do. Miskin 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting reasoning you give for your edit to Macedonia, which is "you mention A, you must also mention B (in the same place)" Applying the same standard, don't you think that when the introduction says Sparta "overpowered" Athens and Persia, it should also mention it lost wars/battles to both? NN 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The battles lost by Sparta are already mentioned in detail in the Rise and Decline section. Your addition is a abundant as it reveals a POV and adds undue weight to the article. Miskin 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not quite what Domitius did, his edit put them at the same place instead of one in the introduction and another one in a later section. I think the fact that you are missing is that nationalistic rather than balanced edits end up giving a nation a bad name. I am not from Greece, Persia or other involved nations. My opinion has changed for the worse over the past week. My objective is to have Wiki be balanced and resistance to it conveys a negative message. NN 18:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on Macedonia has to do with modern politics, land-claims, etc - nothing to do with ancient history, so there's a little huge difference which doesn't allow you to say "you did that there so you have to do it here". Now one other question for you... How on earth is any nation getting a bad name in the article Sparta?? Where does this new view come from?? We're talking about 2500 years ago, there's no Spartan state and there certainly is no Persia today. How do you expect us to take you seriously after knowing your personal views on the world? As for your "balanced objectives"... Let us just say that I'm immune to many things you have already brought to article: rv-warring, disruptive editing, POV-pushing, nonsense argumentation, ignorance of the policy - but one thing that really bothers me is to be taken for an idiot. Unless of course you say those things only to be heard by the newcomers, which would mean that you take them for idiots. Miskin 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Miskin you wrote "bothers me is be taken for an idiot". Be assured that is not my intention and I respect all editors here (even if I sometimes think their energies are misdirected). Life is too short to be wasted in making other people feel bad. NN 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was looking over your edits to other articles involving Greece, Macedonia etc. It seems that you and Miskin take the same positions. I think quite a few of these articles should be improved to make them more balanced. NN 17:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * After all you've said and done (accusations for alleged eurocentiric views - info blanking - rv-warring etc), I feel that you take me for an idiot when you try to convince me that you have absolutely no agenda on subject, or worse, that you care for the welfare of the article. Miskin 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You can start as many RFCs as you like but it won't help much over a clear question of WP:POLICY. When it is announced that you went through all this based on your personal knowledge and interpretation people will laugh at you. When was the last time you made a contribution to this article? When did you care about imporving the article? Never. It makes me laugh to even hear you talking about "improving" the articles that you have almost vandalised. Miskin 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * NN, if you want to initiate a RfC you are more than welcomed. I don't see any problem in following the procedures WP provides (such as RfCs), and I do not see why Domitius, Miskin or any other user could have any problem with that. To the contrary! Now, as far as "consensus" is concerned: I think that your interpretation of "consensus" is a bit strange. For a loooooong time there was "consensus" for this specific section of the lead, until you questioned it, and unilaterally started reverting. I think that you are the one who should provide consensus supporting your view, and not the editors who defend the current and established version of the lead. After all, NN, I respect and laud your devotion to consensus, but I'm surprised, because in the lead of another article, you clearly acted against a consensus verified by a poll, and you insinsted on reverting the outcome of this specific consensus. Please, try to be a bit more consistent. Regards!--Yannismarou 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Yannis, I did not say my view was the consensus, I said "we should try to find a consensus". As for "I think that you are the one who should provide consensus supporting your view, and not the editors who defend the current and established version of the lead." it seems you are making up Wiki policy or can you point me to where this can be found? As for your reference to the other article, as a matter of simple English, though a vote has positive qualities it does not equal consensus. NN 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You actually stalked Domitius and rv-warred with him in other articles, on matters you obviously couldn't care less about. This kind of stalking behaviour can only be perceived as an indirect threat against another user, an implication of the type "get off my back or I'll get on yours". This is really an inexcusable behaviour in wikipedia, and says a lot about your alleged neutrality. Miskin 21:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I did anything but "stalk" anyone. Yes, that article did come to my notice when I was reading Domitius' page (for answers to messages left by me). The name FYROM is rather strange, hence my edits. I cannot think of another country being called "former this" or "future that". However, when I saw that the discussion and vote, I stopped editing that article. You see, I am reasonable. Show me objective proof and I am willing to accept the opposing viewpoint. NN 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not allow Fictional Hollywood movies dictate Wikipedia articles
Hi I was directed to this page regarding some on going disputes regarding the Sparta article.

Over the last couple of years I have seen a surge in incorrect, often fictional, additions being made to certain Ancient History articles based facts attained from Hollywood movies.

Please beware that movies like "300" and "Alexander" as well as their older variants are largely fictional and are often very superficial about the facts that they cover. In light of this, only references from widely accepted books and well-established sources are deemed acceptable in wikipedia.

Regarding usage of the word "superpower" to describe Sparta, which is one of many Greek City-states, is grossly incorrect since Sparta was neither a geographic, political, nor military superpower. Indeed the Spartans were often a Persian vassal city whereby the Persian empire would finance Sparta to (militarily) settle disputes with other Greek cities. Spartan commanders were often hired by the Persian empire to train divisions within the Persian navy and army and hence you should be able to see that while Sparta was strong among the Greek cities, it was heavily under the influence of an existing superpower.

Lets proceed our edits to this and other related artilces cautiously.... Mehrshad123 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cite your sources and try to reach a consensus before removing referenced information from an article. At the moment there is not a single "counter-reference" to support yours and Nayan's claims. Only original research. Miskin 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Miskin - your name was referred to as one of the people introducing these invalid additions. Please see the definition of "superpower" - you are the one that is introducing original source information to this article. This is not a summary of a hollywood movie.Mehrshad123 00:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I feel obliged to direct you to WP:ATT, or the older WP:NOR and WP:CITE. The edits you remove are supported by numerous and very credible sources. Your approach on defining "superpower" is original research which I'm not going to enforce. And please don't remove content without discussion first. Miskin 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, another POV-warrior. Look I'm not going to continue your rv-war. I think it's time to refer to an administrator. Miskin 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain what Wiki policy was violated by positioning your text (which I still think is quite dubious though referenced) inside the article? We could do a RfC and try to come to some sort of a consensus. NN 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your friend based his removal of text on his own personal views and conclusions, known in wp as original research. There's a clear policy against this practice, it is explicitely stated in WP:NOR and WP:ATT. Same goes for adding text, you must be able to reference it per WP:CITE. This must be like the 88th I'm linking those policies in the talk page. You might as well read them this time. I told you, you can start as many RFC as you want, we can even go all the way to ArbCom. You will soon find out that no matter how many editors get involved, wp:policy is non-negotiable. Nobody will take you seriously when they find out that you have based your claims on plain old OR. Miskin 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To all the POV pushers around here, a source has been cited from Cambridge Uni Press, and no sources contradicting have been cited. I don't get why you don't get that what you are doing violates WP:NOR. Just because you think Sparta cannot be defined as a superpower, it doesn't mean you can erase valid sources.--Domitius 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. But - and this is a big but - no matter which way you put it, referring to Sparta as a "superpower" is very, very silly. No; really.  Gardener of Geda  | Message Me.... 00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * deep sigh* Why is that so obvious to you Geda, but so very very hard to get through to some people? Is this how the remaining best years of my life (in any are left at all) are going to be spent? NN 00:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how familiar you are with books, but the Cambridge University Press is unarguably one of the oldest and most reliable publishers in the world, all its publications are a guarantee of credibility. Two sources on political science cited in Talk, are from this publisher. Then the rest of the three historical sources come from good houses, just not the best in the world like CUP. To me what is silly, is someone who criticises such material because in his own personal opinion, what they say is 'silly'. Maybe it's easier to think that your personal opinion is not based on solid arguments, or that your knowledge on history, political science etc might not be the one of an expert. Hence why original research is not allowed. Miskin 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is becoming a distraction. WP:RS (Cambridge University Press) vs WP:OR (no sources contradicting)... A "superpower" in the ancient world speaks for itself. The reader definitely understands the comparable context. I wouldn't change a sourced edit to address explanations for total idiots (those are not reading us). I'm glad you all think this is silly. NikoSilver 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are 3 people (all from the same country or ethnicity) holding one opinion, and 3 others (from 3 different countries) holding another opinion, what does that tell you about bias? NN 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are clearly of Iranian origin and Mehrshad is most likely an Iranian citizen. Gardener has a certain POV on the topic but he has neither participated in rv-warring, nor removed chunks of referenced text, nor complained about this in the past. Miskin 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw myself, Domitius and Nikosilver come all from different countries. Miskin 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you got it. I am as much of Iranian origin, as much Sparta was a superpower. Also do you understand the meaning of the word 'ethnicity' that I used? NN 01:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's sourced and no counter sources have been cited. Wikipedia's content policies are crystal clear - the opinions of individual users (whether you or me) are of no significance. For once, Nayan is right: it's so very very hard to get through to some people.--Domitius 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care who the publisher is. It is wrong and it is a single source among millions to the contrary.

Please look on a map of the Classical period. Sparta is a dot on that map. Your source is obviously not fluent in English, or is as biased as you are. Either way the information is grossly incorrect and largely based on the "300" Hollywood trailer! (I understand that you are all very proud of your Greek nationality, but anyone with at least high school diploma will look at this article and laugh both at Wikipedia and the article)

Mehrshad123 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Insinuating nationalistic bias is not as uncivil as it would be to say that non-Greek users may not be informed for Greek history. The sources speak for themselves, and all we have here is someone with enough spite to go around and post messages for help to people who can't know better. Simply, in ancient times, a superpower was a superpower of its time, and compared to the others around. The "dot on the map" shows the city's center; not Lakedemonia, neither the conquests. Hell, you could say the same for Constantinople, or Rome; after all, they are just cities. NikoSilver 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is truth in that. The first time I read it I laughed, that is why I changed it. NN 01:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still laughing with this story, but for different reasons. Miskin 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that Sparta is a dot on the map is actually embarrassing the Persians, so I don't really know why you said that. Miskin 01:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cambridge Uni Press sources are not fluent in English. There's a novelty!--Domitius 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone (not sure who) said: I don't care who the publisher is. It is wrong and it is a single source among millions to the contrary. Sounds like a good argument for your RFC already. Miskin 01:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to actually get a look at at least one of these millions of sources. Alas, not to be ;-) --Domitius 01:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Touché. For the time being, there's 5 sources (among other discovered but uncited) against zero. The article mentions only two for the obvious practical reasons. Miskin 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Users interested in more than wrongly accusing informed editors for nationalistic bias following the wishes of spammers, can pick any of these 94 additional sources. NikoSilver 01:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wonderful research Niko. You have unearthed the following evidence (94 sources) in favor of Sparta being a superpower, for example: 1) Cracking the AP World History Exam, 2004-2005 Edition - Page 101 "Athens became the ancient Greek equivalent of a superpower" 2) The Superpower Odyssey: A Russian Perspective on Space Cooperation - Page 124 by Yuri Y Karash - 1999 - 339 pages "He was born in Sparta, Wisconsin," 3) 	Ancient Greek Fortifications 500-300 BC - Page 7 by Nic Fields, Donato Spedaliere - 2006 - 64 pages ... Dionysios I captures Rhegion 386-371 BC, DEFEAT OF SPARTA 385 BC ...liberated (Thebes new 'superpower') 378 BC
 * And the above 3 matches from only the top 8 results. Now not only do we know that Sparta was a superpower, but also it was sometimes called Athens or Thebes. Also Wisconsin was a district of Sparta... NN 01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * None of this changes the fact that credible publications, academic articles and university pages mention Sparta and Athens as superpowers. Which is only normal. Miskin 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Athens and Thebes also had their day.--Domitius 01:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Domitius, see WP:NOFEEDING. NikoSilver 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Add to this the results from google scholar, and edu sites. Miskin 01:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. ([edit conflict]) Rephrasing as follows:


 * Users interested in more than wrongly accusing informed editors for nationalistic bias following the wishes of spammers, can pick any of these 94 additional books, or any of these 266 additional academic papers. NikoSilver 01:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (keeping on reading more of the 94 books found by Niko to prove Sparta was a superpower) 4) Classical Art: From Greece to Rome - Page 3 by Mary Beard, John Henderson - 2001 - 298 pages ... city-states of classical Greece (Athens, Sparta, Corinth, and the rest), ... Rome stronghold to the greatest imperial superpower the world had ever known. 5) Alexander the Great: a reader - Page 33 by Ian Worthington By the end of the 340s BC Macedon had become a superpower. 6) The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon - Page 13 by Robert Jervis - 1989 - 266 pages Hostages Because of mutual vulnerability, each superpower has involuntarily given [USA and USSR].
 * Thanks to your wonderful research I now also know Sparta was sometimes called Rome, Macedonia, USA, or USSR. NN 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Macedon didn't conquer Sparta, however it did conquer Persia. Also one of the sources does compare Sparta and Athens to USA and USSR. You can take your pick on which one Sparta may be. Miskin 02:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also from what you just cited: "By the end of the 340s BC Macedon had become a superpower." The citation states that Macedon was a superpower already during its hegemony over Greece, before it conquered Persia. Therefore hegemony over Greece (see Spartan hegemony), implies superpower status, a concept you never accepted before. Miskin 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, calling Macedonia a superpower (worldwide scale) is absurd. Your position becomes justifying one absurd edit with conclusions derived from another absurd source. NN 03:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems all the disagreement here is over the use of the term superpower. The OED defines superpower as "a nation or state having a dominant position in world politics; one which has the power to act decisivly in pursuit of interests which embrace the whole world...". It is not right to apply this term to Sparta, nor to any power of the time, simply because world domination was not possible. Superpower is a modern term based upon the notion that one nation can affect the entire globe. I suggest the term "hegemony" be used instead to refer to the dominance of Sparta over Greece at one point, as this term originated in discussing the dominance of Greek city states. There certainly is a lot of academic evidence to give weight to that point. User:Hodgetts 06:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this debate: if a city-state could defeat both the Athenian and Persian empires (both of whom were superpowers) that city state, namely Sparta, is a superpower. Gregsinclair 08:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I hesitate to wade into this rather silly argument except that two things need to be pointed out: 1) the term Superpower was coined to describe the dominant nuclear powers that replaced the Great powers, to apply it to antiquity is at best a journalistic façon de parlé at worst it is obfuscatingly ahistorical, 2) regardless of how useful the term is as a piece of explanatory shorthand it is still a conceptual construction placed on the empirical facts of Sparta's influence and strength. If we must play antique military Top Trumps why not tabulate the relative strengths of the Aegian players? Twospoonfuls 13:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why there is all this fuss with the term "superpower". I can live without it in the article, but, at the same time, I don't see why its usage is such a great problem. Yes, "superpower" is a modern term, Twospoonfuls, but classicists very often use it retrospectively to describe the situation in ancient times. Cartledge speaks about "Greek superpowers" (Sparta and Lakonia, 223), while Shirley and Romm call it "the traditional military superpower" of Greece (Selection from the Greek histories, xvi). Personally, what I'm not sure about is the asssertion that Sparta "overpowered Persian empire". Yes, Sparta and the other Greek states won Persia during the Persian Wars, but this was a defensive war; thus, we cannot speak about overpowering, but about an effective defence. This defence became an offensive, which was however limited to the coast areas of Asia minor, and was primarily led by Athens (Cimon) and its League, and not by Sparta. Later, during the Peloponnesian War Sparta made an alliance with Persia, whose role was primordial in order the Spartans to win over the Athenians. Therefore, we could conclude that during the Peloponnesian War, the Persians acted as an "external military and financial superpower", manipulating the Athenians and the Spartans. The first time Sparta effectively attempted to question Persia's pre-eminence over the vast areas of Asia was during Agesilaus' leadership. But again, despite some military successes, Agesilaus was recalled to mainland Greece before implementing his big plans. So, once again, despite the "potential" than may have existed in Agesilaus' initiatives, he did not manage to "overpower Persia", who remained the dominant world power in a huge areas of Asia, Middle East and Egypt. We can say that Sparta was a superpower able to contest Persia's pre-eminence in Asia, Asia Minor, Middle East etc., a superpower that for many years dominated the areas of Greece, coastal Asia minor, and south Italy, a superpower that had reached an equal military strenght with Persia, but I am not sure Sparta ever managed to overpower the Persian empire (as it did indeed with the Delian League [also called "Athenian Empire").--Yannismarou 13:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Yanni and Twospoonfuls, Yes this is a rather "silly" argument and a lot of "fuss" over one word. Essentially my point is that to have the sentence "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower,[1][2] and by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires" at the VERY TOP (second sentence) of the article and linking to superpower (power on worldwide scale) is misleading to the reader. I offered two compromises 1) Add other material in proximity that balances the sentence by mentioning Sparta's defeats by Athens, Persia and Thebes. 2) Move the sentence down to the middle of the article. The consistent answer I get from Miskin and Domitius is that neither is acceptable as "superpower is from a referenced source". Note that I did not insist on removal of the word superpower even though the link to the Wiki article it makes mentions "power on a worldwide scale" in its very first sentence and thus makes it inapplicable to Sparta. NN 14:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is applicable, because the world was not perceived in the way it is perceived now, and because prominent classicists with much better knoweldge of us about this period regard it as applicable! Now, the rewording of the "overpowering of Persia" is something different, and, as I explained above, I also have doubts about the accuracy of this particular assertion.--Yannismarou 14:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yanni you do a pretty good job of summarizing the situation between Sparta and Persia. Would you not agree that it is misleading to the reader to have ONLY the following sentence in the introduction without mention of Spartan defeats. "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower,[1][2] and by overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires". NN 14:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To the reader the word superpower and the Wiki article it links to has a particular meaning that applies to the current world. If it is to be used in the sense that "prominent classicists with much better knoweldge" would have used it, then it should be clarified that it is being used in that sense, and not the sense that it is used in the modern world, and not the sense the Wiki article it links to uses it. The objective is not to mislead the readers. NN 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Spartan defeats are already mentioned in the 'Rise and Decline' section. We can't go against wikipedia guidelines in order to compromise with what an individual editor may read between the lines, this has clearly not a place in the head. In fact Sparta's individual defeats are more emphasised than its victories, the battle at Mycalae is not even mentioned. Miskin 14:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Miskin I presume when you write "this has clearly not a place in the head" you mean that other material mentioning Sparta's defeats do not have a place in the introduction. What exactly is your logic justifying mentioning Sparta's "overpowering" Athens and Persia in the introduction, but not mentioning Sparta's defeats by these two? NN 14:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nayan you just keep using argumentation that is already treated by wp policy. For example, you cannot use another wp article as a source for edits, this is a basic principle. Not only you cite another wp article, but you base your argument on you personal interpretation of the article. What characterises Sparta is that it was a military and later a political superpower. This has to be in the head. Miskin 14:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't get involved much (at all) in ancient Greek history, but I did study the Peloponnesian war at one time. Perhaps it would be better to state "Following its defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta became the hegemonic power of classical Greece". --A.Garnet 14:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I find A.Garnet suggestion excellent! NN 14:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't. Because the battle at Mycalae did not reverse the course of the War. I repeat and I stay there: what may be misleading is the assertion that Athens overpowered Persia. It is another thing to say that Sparta "won over Persia during the Persian wars" or that "Agesilaus invaded Persian territory", and another thing to see that Sparta managed to overpower Persia. There was no definitive military victory of Sparta that hints at such an "overpowering". Personally, I would be OK with a wording such as: "During Classical times Sparta had reached the status of a military superpower,[1][2] by overpowering Athens and effectively confronting the Persian troops in various occasions". or something like that ... I'm not a native English speaker, and, therefore, somebody else may think a better wording.--Yannismarou 14:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I find A. Garnet's suggestion as a good compromise between two referenced, conficting views. As long as Nayan's view is based on POV assertions, there's no room for such a compromise. Miskin 14:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, we may actually have a compromise. I find A. Garnet's suggestion acceptable too. NN 14:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of the sources don't call Sparta a "super-power", you may not find sources arguing that "Sparta wasn't a super-power" because it's an absurd fringe idea to begin with, so Nayan's view is based what the majority of scholarly sources regard Spartans as, just a power within Greece. --Mardavich 14:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Persia did never actually defeat Sparta in battle. The fall of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae is not counted by historians as battle of Sparta per se, otherwise we wouldn't be talking for the Battle of Leuctra as the first Spartan defeat on land. Furthermore both Thermopylae and Leuctra are mentioned, while Spartan victory over Persia at Mycalae is not. Miskin 14:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Read again please, I said there's no room for such a compromise under the given circumstances. Miskin 14:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparta wasn't even an empire, let alone a super-power. If we're going to call Sparta a "super-power" because Sparta won a defensive war against the Persian Empire, then we might as well start calling Vietnam a "super-power" because Vietnam won a defensive war against the United States of America. --Mardavich 14:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It successfully defended itself against China too, and then went on to install a regime in Cambodia. NN 14:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, What "given circumstances"? About what my view is based on? I am accepting A. Garnet's suggestion for the Wiki text. But you say you won't compromise based on my views? You want me to change my views before we compromise? I thought the compromise was over what text is supposed to go into the article. What my views are is of no consequence. NN 14:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Miskin, Persia never defeated Sparta in a war as a whole, but, at the same time, Sparta never overpowered Persia (it just wan a defensive war against Persia, but again not aone; having the necessary aid from the rest of the Greek states). I repeat my proposal: 1) keep the term "superpower", 2) reword the inaccurate assertion that Sparta "overpowered Persia". I do not want (and I cannot) impose my proposal unilaterally, but if I see that it is backed by a considerable number of editors here, then I'll remove the protection and I'll rephrase the relevant part of the lead as above.--Yannismarou 14:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that you people are confusing facts with theories. It is not a fact that "Sparta was a superpower" no 5th century greek would refer to another city state as that. It is a fact that "Cartledge and Romm think Sparta is a superpower" to which the obvious rejoinder is "who gives a shit, that still tells me nothing empirically true about Sparta which is what I'm reading this article to find out about". If we are going to introduce theories as facts it makes a nonsense of the whole business since it replaces verifiable truth with argument from authority. To put it another way, it doesn't matter if the entire history faculty at Harvard chanted "Sparta was a superpower" in unison, it would still be an opinion not a fact. Twospoonfuls 14:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think most editors who have joined this discussion are saying that it is inappropriate to call Sparta a superpower. I suggest we go with A. Garnet's wording which Miskin says is a "good compromise". NN 14:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Nayan don't manipulate what I said. It would be a good compromise if the opposing view had a minimal suppport of anything other than POV. The given circumstances involve a number of POV assertions on one hand (added a new one by Mardavich in the lot), and a number of referenced assertions on the other. Out of pure respect of wp:policy, I can't even think of a reason to compromise any further. Miskin 14:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou I suggested changing "overpowered" to "defeated a war", which has no room for doubt. Miskin 14:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Twospoonfuls, theories play a great role in our lives, in science and in encyclopedias as well. Some scientists laughed at Enstein's theories and regarded them as an "opinion"! Yes, calling "Sparta" a "superpower" may be an opinion, but it may be a "well-backed opinion"; so, why shouldn't we include it? And empirical reading is not enough for me. An article can also include conclusions, and conclusions may include opinions; my only interest is to have well-backed and well-cited opinions. After all, I don't think it is that easy to distinguish "opinions" from "facts".--Yannismarou 14:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

However I don't agree that a "defensive victory" is important only to the defender. That would be true in the Ottoman siege of Malta, or even the Persian defeat at Marathon. However the second Persian war can only be compared to the Roman Republic's victories over Pyrrhus and Hannibal, or the hegemony of the Habsburg dynasty assumed over Europe and the Ottoman Empire as a result of the Battle of Vienna. Miskin 14:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that Persia, an undisputed superpower, never managed to defeat Sparta in battle (and not just at war). Sparta invaded Asia Minor and Persia had to ally itself to the anti-Spartan Greeks in order to repel a futher invasion. It doesn't take a logician to derive that Sparta was also a superpower at an equal (if not superior) level. After all Sparta lived as an independent state for over 700 years, Persia did only for some 200. Miskin 15:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise
'A.Garnet' wrote "Perhaps it would be better to state "Following its defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta became the hegemonic power of classical Greece". Miskin said this was a "good compromise". I think A. Garnet's suggestion is excellent. I propose this as a compromise to the existing text in the introduction. NN 14:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * NN, Miskin did not say that. And it is not polite to twist other people's words. I honestly try to believe that you did not understand what Miskin said, and I ask you to read more carefully his response to Garnet's proposal.--Yannismarou 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yanni, Please refrain from personal attacks. You are accusing me of being impolite. NN 15:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin wrote "It would be a good compromise if the opposing view had a minimal suppport of anything other than POV." I am sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. Could you please explain? Also wrote "The given circumstances involve a number of POV assertions on one hand (added a new one by Mardavich in the lot), and a number of referenced assertions on the other." Is the fact that Mardavich expressed an opinion stopping you from compromising? This opinion is in the talk page only, why should that be material to what is written on the actual page? NN 14:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please Nayan stop trying to manipulate other people's words, it just makes you look anti-sportsmanlike, let alone desperate. Miskin 15:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To cite myself from above: Please Nayan don't manipulate what I said. It would be a good compromise if the opposing view had a minimal suppport of anything other than POV. The given circumstances involve a number of POV assertions on one hand (added a new one by Mardavich in the lot), and a number of referenced assertions on the other. Out of pure respect of wp:policy, I can't even think of a reason to compromise any further. Miskin 15:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really not understand the difference between the utility of views supported by POV and the utility of views supported by references? Miskin 15:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no desire to manipulate anything, I am asking you to explain what you mean. Sentences like "It would be a good compromise if the opposing view had a minimal suppport of anything other than POV." are not easy to comprehend. Why don't you answer a simple question: Do you find A. Garnet's text a good compromise? NN 15:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, NN, I still try not to believe that you pretend you do not understand: Miskin said that these would be a good compromise under specific terms that are not fulfilled right now. This is the meaning of his words. And your effort to twist them, and interprete them as you wish does not contribute to this discussion.
 * Miskin, about Persia, you proposed the wording "defeated a war". I want to have in mind the whole phrase, so I re-edit here my proposal for this part of this phrase: "by overpowering Athens and effectively confronting the Persian troops in various occasions". Do you have an objection with this wording, and if yes what is your counter-proposal?--Yannismarou 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yanni, you seem to have made a proposal to Miskin, as if you were representing the opposing view. In your proposal you are now reducing the debate to the word "overpowering", in essence accepting superpower by default. That is the important part of the argument. Talk about honesty! NN 15:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * NN, if you have to accuse me of anything use this area and not my talk page. I reject your warnings, because I did not attack you personally, and it is not my problem if you fail to understand other people words, as you did with Miskin's comment. Now, if you still think that my comment constitutes PA, proceed to all the due actions against me. Nobody has imminity here; not me neither you.--Yannismarou 15:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If I believe you made a personal attack on my character with innuendoes about politeness and honesty then I will indeed ask you to cease. Before your make such innuendoes you should consider the possibility that convoluted sentences can be interpreted in various ways. NN 15:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really not understand the difference between the utility of views supported by POV and the utility of views supported by references? Miskin 15:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

People, do you realise Thucydides is used today as perhaps the foremost source on hegemonic warfare? If any term can be applied to Sparta, it is hegemon.


 * "Diodorus recounts how the reception of the news of the repudiation of Spartan hegemony led to anger and demands for war with Athens" The True Cause of the Peloponnesian War, G Dickins - The Classical Quarterly, 1911.


 * "as leaders of the moderate democratic party at this time, and although Plutarch mentions Thrasybulus and Archinus as op- posing the Spartan hegemony" - Athenian Foreign Policy in 396-395 BC, AF Bruce - The Classical Journal, 1963


 * " no direct anti-Spartan action was takenin Greece and no active resistance was offered to Spartan hegemony" Athenian Democracy and the Revival of Imperialistic Expansion at the Beginning of the Fourth Century, S Perlman - Classical Philology, 1968.


 * "the formula that was the basic ingredient of all future treaties between Sparta and her allies and that established the nature of Spartan hegemony" The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, D Kagan - 2006 (take note, Donald Kagan among most authoratative scholars on Thucydides and classical Greece).


 * "After a detailed survey of the hegemonic power of Athens and Sparta, Kagan argues that there existed no basic conflict between them" Reflections on War and Peace, TH von Laue - History and Theory, 1998


 * "This essay argues Thucydides theory of hegemonic war constitutes one of the central organizing ideas for the study of international relations" The Theory of Hegemonic War, Robert Gilpin, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 1988. --A.Garnet 15:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A. Garnet thanks. I once again propose A.Garnet's text as a compromise. NN 15:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Already answered. Miskin 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with you, NN, is that you want a win-0 situation here in your favor. This is your mistake; you think that you possess the absolute truth and everybody else here is wrong. Even if you see that a considerable number of editors here insist on the inclusion of the word "superpowr", you stand firm in you opinion (which would be laudable under different circumstances) and you believe that you will "overpower" them. It is you right to act as you wish, but I reassure you that these tactics of your will lead nowhere. Even in issues where you opinion could be heard (such as the Persia issue), your stance leads to the opposite results and to the disappearance of any prospect of compromise here.--Yannismarou 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And Garnet, yes Kagan speaks about a "hegemony", but Cartledge also uses the term "superpower"; and other writers as well. Hegemony refers to the situation in Greece. "Superpower" has broader world dimensions, and these dimensions are tried to be exposed by the editors of this article who chose to use the word "superpower", that Sparta's power had a broader impact beyond the boarders of the Greek world. I'm afraid Garnet's proposal is not a copromise in the eyes of many involved editors here; it is regarded by them as the imposition of NN's proposal on them.--Yannismarou 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, you can continue your endless discussions as long as you wish. For my part, I'm willing to implement any compromise you reach; and as far as Persia is concerned, I wait for a counter-proposal, otherwise I'll regard my wording as acceptable and I'll edit it.--Yannismarou 15:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This really does not make sense Yannis. Sparta's power did not have broader impacts beyond the Greek world as the term superpower would suggest, which is why stating it was a hegemonic power within the Greek world is both verifiable and accurate. Sparta certainly did not threaten Persia at the end of the Peloponnesian war, and could not have won it wihout Persia, so again I dont understand what these "broader impacts" are which warrant the use of the term superpower. The only reason I took part in this discussion is because this is one area of classical Greek history I am familiar with, so I certainly am not here to "impose" NN's proposal on you lot (which again I dont understand since it was my own proposal). --A.Garnet 15:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not say that this is what you tried to do. I just said that this is how your proposal will be regarded by certain editors here who go for "superpower".--Yannismarou 15:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I would really like an answer from Miskin, it seemed he opposed my original proposal on the basis of no sources, now that I have provided sources is this not an acceptable compromise? --A.Garnet 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * May I counter-propose this sentence, and have your reactions: ""Following its defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta became the hegemonic power of classical Greece, possessing one of the world's most powerful armies and effectively confronting the Persian empire in various occasions". I start from Garnet's proposal, and I also stress the fact that Sparta had one of the most poerful armied of the era, which is not something inaccurate I think.--Yannismarou 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A. Garnet, no offence, but from what you say it is evident that you're not familiar enough with the topic. Sparta invaded Persian land and Persia didn't even attempt to face her in battle. She only applied diplomacy in order to strengthen the Greek allied states who were already at war against Sparta. This is wikipedia forbids original research and lets the experts (references) do the job. Don't be wasting your time on original research, if you want to make a point just cite a source. What do you care about this topic anyway? Does it have to do with the fact that Domitius is involved here? Neither you nor Nayan nor any of the people who want to make decisions on the article had ever participated in its construction. And you have both shown imperfect knowledge on the topic, especially Nayan. Miskin 16:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW I'm sure A.Garnet meant well here. I doubt it's like the cases of wikistalking by Nayan and Oguz I had to deal with.--Domitius 16:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Garnet I don't understand how the mention of Spartan hegemony (already linked the article) can be used as an argument against the term 'superpower' or any term whatsoever. Other terms involve the "Spartan Empire", does it mean that we cannot use hegemony anymore? This makes no sense, see my comments above. Miskin 16:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think Garnet had good intentions here. My proposal still stands: in case you want to take it as it is, modify it, counter-propose anything, please do so. I do not want to act unilaterally, and I also want all involved parties to voice themselves clearly here. Personally, I believe that telling "possessed one of the most poerful armies of the era" instead of "superpower" is not a big deal.--Yannismarou 16:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're right. In any case the reason I insist on using referenced content (besides it being a policy), is due to the fact that eventhough to me it is evident that many people here base their conclusions on erroneous POV or personal agendas, there's no means to really prove it. I can claim for example that Nayan has a pro-X agenda, or that he's not familiar enough with the topic. I can say it, I can demostrate it, and no matter how obvious it may be, he will never accept it. This is why the only way to do this is by citing a direct counter-source. Miskin 16:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:ATT: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Does this resolve our dispute? Miskin 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, I agree with that, but this does not give an answer to our question here about the inclusion of the term "superpower" or not. As you see, other editors provide sources for the term "hegemony" equally attributable and reliable. So, I ask: do you insist on the inclusion of the term "superpower"? Do you reject the proposals of Garnet or mine? If yes, I'll proceed in initiating a poll with 3 alternatives: 1) the current version supported by you, 2) Garnet's proposal, and 3) my proposal. I don't see any other way out of the current stalemate.--Yannismarou 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'hegemonic' status is already mentioned. I just don't understand how it replaces "superpower" or "imperial" status. If I come up with a reference on the USA as a "hegemony", will that imply i.e. not a superpower? Miskin 16:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yannismarou I don't care about the edit per se either, I have already stated that I don't have any problem to rephrase it, only within reason. As proven above this is mainstream terminology for both Sparta and Athens, and the opposing view has yet to come up with a single counter-source. My problem here is that people are trying to use their POV in order to make edits, something which wikipedia openly condemns. To me this is a matter of respecting the rules, it's not about exagerrating or overemphasising the role of Sparta. Those who know history are already familiar with it. I'm also bothered by the fact that Nayan has already been involved into edit-warring and wiki-stalking (among other things), and as long as I remain in wikipedia, I'll will never let a disruptive editor's POV take precedence over policy. I hope I was clear enough. Miskin 16:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * At least do you agree that the assertion "Sparta overpowered Persia" is inaccurate?--Yannismarou 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't agree that it is inaccurate but I accept that it can be questioned, since it doesn't come with a source. I've already tried to change it to "defeated at war" (which is sourced) but the edit got lost after Nav's rv-warring. Miskin 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You regard "defeated at war" it as more accurate than "effectively confronting the Persian empire in various occasions" that I proposed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yannismarou (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Miskin, i really do not have to put up with bullshit comments like the one you just made. I've wasted over an hour here making proposals, finding sources and attempting to create a compromise because it just so happens I have an interest in this area, and yes it may surpise you editors of Turkish origin do have knowledge outside of Turkish related topics! Your response is to accuse me of stalking, which I dont believe Domitius or anyone else has ever accused me of. On top of this, you now warn me in bold about providing references when I just gave you six which refer to Sparta either as a hegemonic power or the conflict between Athens as a hegemonic war (which by extension makes Sparta a hegemonic power). The important thing is to stress Sparta's credential as a power within classical Greece, not by using a term which implies unrivalled political and economic clout in the international arena in the 20th century. Just to put things into perspective, let me quote you Donald Kagan again, "For a short time they clung to a kind of hegemony over their fellow Greeks, but only so long as the Persian king wanted them to do so. Within three decades of their greate victoy the Spartans were defeated by the Thebans in a major land battle, and their power was destroyed forever" Kagan, 2005. The Peloponnesian War, Harper Perennial p.487. --A.Garnet 16:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Supersources

 * 1) Sparta and Lakonia - Page 223 by Paul Cartledge ...Both Persians had reason to support Sparta against Athens, ... simply be replaced by another Greek superpower with imperial and 'Panhellenic' ambitions. ...
 * 2) A State of Love: Homeland Security DJ Farmer - Administrative Theory & Praxis, 2002 - atp.metapress.com ... reports how the Athenians made an expedition (38 ships and 3,000 soldiers) against the island of Melos, a colony of Sparta. A relative superpower, Athens was ...
 * 3) Cracking the AP World History Exam, 2004-2005 Edition - Page 101 ... Athens became the ancient Greek equivalent of a superpower and dominated the ... In 431 BCE, Pericles pushed Athens into a catastrophic war with Sparta, ...
 * 4) On the War for Greek Freedom: Selections from the'histories' S Shirley, JS Romm - 2003 - ... Eventually this empire grew so pow- erful and expansive that Sparta, the traditional military superpower of Greece, felt compe lled to check it, and the ...
 * 5) The Moral Warrior: Ethics and Service in the US Military ML Cook - 2004 ... Athens did not set out to be the superpower in her world. ... At the conclusion of the Persian War, the alliance was still led by Sparta. ...
 * 6) On the War for Greek Freedom: Selections from the 'histories' - Page xvi by Herodotus, Samuel Shirley, James S. Romm - 2003 - 201 pages ... this empire grew so powerful and expansive that Sparta, the traditional military superpower of Greece, felt compelled to check it, and the disastrous ...
 * 7) The Greek'Third World' S Hornblower - The Classical Review, 1988 - JSTOR ... Orte - had tried to turn the spotlight away from the 'superpower' states ... starts from a programmatic desire (witness his exclusion of Athens and Sparta) to avoid ...
 * 8) M Lore, JD Fuhrman, NB Webber, LW Davis, DH Gamble … - torch.org ... Greek city- states of Athens and Sparta had been at war for nineteen years. Why this war should have dragged on is puzzling. Athens was the superpower of its ...
 * 9) Ancient Greek Fortifications 500-300 BC - Page 7 by Nic Fields, Donato Spedaliere - 2006 - 64 pages ... Dionysios I captures Rhegion 386-371 BC, DEFEAT OF SPARTA 385 BC ... liberated (Thebes new 'superpower') 378 BC ...
 * 10) Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations - Page 92 by M. a. Muqtedar Khan - 2004 - 252 pages ...The scenario was clear, Melos was in no position to defend itself and the other superpower, Sparta, was not expected to intervene. ...

Ok, this is becoming boring. There are some 94 books online and some 266 academic papers online which contain both strings ("Sparta" and "superpower"); most of which are explicit and within context. I don't see why there has to be any discussion, or any compromise, or any more FEEDING of this crazy spite initiated by one user who spams pages around trying to find support from uninformed users, against something sourced by 300+ sources. NikoSilver 16:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, to all of the accredited editors of "both sides" (woah! there's another "side"?) stop discussing this MegaTroll incident and let's all of us do something useful instead. NikoSilver 16:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I refuse to make any sort of compromise with a disruptive editor whose activity has ranged from edit-warring to team-ups and wp-stalking, and has never respected or even read the rules wikipedia abides by. Again, it is a matter of principle and respect to the rules of a "society" (such as wp), I've never given in such an occasion in the past and I don't intend to do so in the future. If the highest level of wikipedia "justice" decided that in Nayan's case there can be an exception to the rules, then I would rest my case. Or simply, if Nayan comes with a counter-source, stating for example how Sparta's geopolical role is exaggerated. I promise I will rephrase the head of the article by myself. Miskin 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)