Thucydides was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article needs cleaning up a bit: new section for quotes; moving section about war to the actual article on the work; etc. Mat334 14:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
.
Hello,
I would like to submitt some pictures. How do i do
that? I have many pictures.
do you put it in via HTML?
Posted, December 13, 2005
i think the site needs more external links.
thanks.
Hello... I've been working on the entry a bit today, December 15th. I added some secondary references and cleaned up some of the other sections. Since Thucydides' only work was the History, there will be inevitable overlap between this entry and the History of the Peloponnesian War entry. It might be worthwhile to consider joining them at some point, but maybe that process would be too unwieldy? Just a thought...
Jim James Sullivan
I've removed the quotes section copied below) until we find sources for these.
Citations needed for quotes.
Indeed. then why are there still none, especially for the reappearance of the bogus last "quote"? (comment added by IP 12.216.25.204 on21:56, June 16, 2006)
Paul August ☎ 20:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed the section containing the erroneously attributed quote to reflect that it is inarguably not from Thucydides and to clarify it's actual origin. However, I feel it should remain in the article along side said clarification given the prevalence of the popular myth and Wikipedia's implied mission to not only disseminate information but to rectify misinformation as well whenever possible. JoeTheDrafter ( talk) 16:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This page http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/?p=3666 identifies the "fighting done by fools" quotation as actually belonging to a 1889 book by Sir William F. Butler about Gordon. I'll be removing the quote, if I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.42.9 ( talk) 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting read, concerned about the lead it needs a rewrite and expand particular concern This work is widely regarded a classic sounds weaselly without a cite. Suggest maybe a copy edit there are other weasel style sentences. I know a lot of the information isnt exactly concise.
Not a concern for GA but suggest that the references get changed to the <ref> <refname=????> <reference> style it saves time in the long run as this autonumbers references and adjusts with edits. Gnangarra 14:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations to the editors of this article Gnangarra 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, there are some problems with this article. To begin with, substantial material from the "life" section is not substantied "from Thucydides' History" as it claims to be. I think it necessary to demarcate clearly between material gleaned from the History and other material. Secondly, in the very first section, there is a reference to the scientific and detached character of the History. This seems irrelevant in an article about *Thucydides*. The opening blurb ought to talk about him. Will it mention the History? Of course. Should it go into depth about it? No. It should probably be formatted as: 1 Sentence identifying Thucyd. 2. Say he wrote the History. 3. Some summarizing sentence about his character, stature etc. I would have just gone ahead on done this, but the article is GA status and has had a lot of good work put into it, so I figured I'd discuss first! Have a good day! Jim 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope long-serving contributors to the Thucydides page won't mind my offering one suggestion. Neither that page, nor the one on the "History" itself, includes any discussion of Thucydides' distinctive stylistic traits, or much on the literary qualities of his book. Does anyone already have it in mind to draft something on these topics? If not, I could offer up something myself in due course for consideration by others - though I'm sure there are people on here much better qualified than I am to do so. John Winterton 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your response. I should finish my translation of Thucydides within the next few weeks, and will then have a go at a first draft of something on his style, for you and others to consider and improve.
Today someone linked sacred or profane in the quotation. Indeed the standard lexicon has established the view that ἱερά and ὅσια together mean "sacred and profane." But I recall that John Chadwick has questioned this pretty convincingly in his Lexicographica Graeca. Wareh 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that THUCYDIDES, above all, is a great philosopher and psychologist in the sense that he penetrates through the core of facts and expresses his views (albeit indirectly but certainly) letting it be known what he thinks of a certain situation. So, it is not only the historian but the thinker and philosopher, all together, that make the man special in historiography.{user: TERENCE KRIGAS, 27 August 2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.252.145 ( talk • contribs)
The second sentence "Thucydides is considered by many to be a scientific historian...." may be a problematic. There have been long and knotty arguments about what exactly defines "scientific history" and whether such a definition is even helpful. It would be better not to plunge the first-time reader of an encyclopedia article on Thucydides into that debate. I also would drop the reference to his systematic gathering of the evidence since nothing seems to be known about that. I propose to rewrite the second sentence as: "His work was the first study of the war-time policies of a nation analysed in terms of cause and effect and explaining the events of the past without reference to the action of the gods." ( RFB 16:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC))
A Citation is needed for one of the statements in the section "The History of the Peloponnesian War" for the statement: "as he himself states, were literary reconstructions rather than actual quotations of what was said — or, perhaps, what he believed ought to have been said. "( 67.194.68.36 ( talk) 03:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC))
I added a section on the influence of Thucycides and Herodotus. I started with two famous quotes from the end of book I, Chapter 1 (taken from the translation by Rex Warner, Penguin edition), normally assumed to refer to Herodotus. They have been replaced by a different quote, which seems less pertinent to me. I would like to change it back but let's talk. Best, ( RFB 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
The word ancient in the first sentence is redundant: modern Greeks were rather thin on the ground in the period 460-395 BC, so there's no risk of confusion. -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
The article fails entirely on lack of referencing. There are too few inline citations altogether, and the ones there are mostly cite Thucydides himself or other ancient writers. The article needs far more referencing to modern scholarship to pass WP:V. As for the few references to modern scholarship, these rely excessively on one writer (Momigliano). Lampman ( talk) 18:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Is not the problem largely that there is a separate article on Thucydides' book, which does indeed cite more recent scholarship? Quite why that separate article is needed is unclear to me, since Thucydides is not an author who wrote numerous works, or of whose life a great deal is known: for most practical purposes Thucydides is his book, and vice versa. At present there is an unhappy split of discussion of his work in two places. Should not the two articles be merged, which would help address the situation that led to the delisting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Winterton ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
Would the quotations section of this article perhaps be best transferred to a separate link on the WikiQuotes site, with a link to it about the bottom of this page? With compliments. DAFMM ( talk) 17:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed this quotation from Green, but some editor reverted me, claiming that he didn't trust me:
"The cleverest intellectual move Thucydides made was the severe limiting of what he deemed permissible as elements of historiography, on the grounds that everything else outside this canon was not only irrelevant but unserious. Out went personal anecdotes, most foreign ethnography and domestic or private motivation: out, above all, went anything to do with women. Religion was women's business, and mostly nonsense anyway, so that could be discarded too. The essence of history was war and politics, as conducted by men in authority. His exclusive privileging of the male political association, in its most public form, became accepted, and historians (being political males themselves) were not inclined to argue. His revisionism not only won out at the time, but established the basic principles of historiography for over two millennia.[24]"
Green is admittedly an established scholar, but this paragraph is nothing but speculation without a shred of evidence. It definitely does not represent Green's best work. On the Humanities reference desk, I recently asked whether the statement "religion was women's business, and mostly nonsense anyway, so that could be discarded too" had any basis in Thucydides' work. Neither I nor any ref desk volunteers could find any reference to either religion or women in the History of the Peloponnesian War. There is no evidence suggesting that Thucydides thought religion was women's business, or that religion really was women's business in ancient Athens, or that the fact it was women's business had anything to do with why Thucydides was atheistic in his treatment of history. In fact, it seems that Green is saying the only reason people don't believe in gods is because they hate women!
Green makes the extraordinary claim that "out, above all, went anything to do with women", but everything we know about ancient Greece suggests that women played no role in public life, and certainly no role in the military. Green goes against this firmly established historical fact derived from numerous sources--Athenian laws, contemporary writings, public records, etc--and postulates that Thucydides threw out everything to do with women, all without offering any evidence.
What bothers me the most is that Green tries to discredit 2 millenia of historiography. That's an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence, being based on speculations about Thucydides that no other scholars (as far as I can tell) share. I therefore conclude that it's the historical equivalent of pseudoscience, and has no place on Wikipedia. -- 140.180.242.9 ( talk) 21:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The photograph I've removed is the same as the one that is identified on the Herodotus page as a "Roman copy of a purported bust of Herodotus." Since the Thucydides page is linked to the Herodotus page, and there is already another photographic representation of Herodotus on this page, it seems inappropriate to retain this image. Activist ( talk) 19:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/48/Hansen.pdf http://europa.eu/scadplus/european_convention/objectives_en.htm
The theory that the landings in America by Columbus caused a revival of interest in Herodotus is very far-fetched. I am wondering what it is doing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.72.219 ( talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
"Cicero calls Herodotus the "father of history;" yet the Greek writer Plutarch, in his Moralia (Ethics) denigrated Herodotus, as the "father of lies"."
Plutarch never used this expression, although he criticized some of his lies. It was invented, I believe by Juan Luis Vives, De Disciplinis. Cf. A. Momigliano, Herodotus in the History of Historiography, Secondo contributo, p. 41-42.
Fabrice Ferrer ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Coming to this article with no knowledge of Thucydides, I am unsure after reading it whether The History of the Peloponnesian War was his only work, or whether he produced other works too. Can it be made explicit, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.222.112 ( talk) 10:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Thucydides. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thucydides/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
1. Well written?: Good mechanics. Very few errors in spelling/grammar. Smooth transition between paragraphs and sentences.
2. Factually accurate?: The article is factually accurate based on the references shown. 3. Broad in coverage?: Though the article is somewhat short, thoroughness of content is evident. 4. Neutral point of view?: The biases expressed in the sources are all expressed in the article. 5. Article stability?: Stability evident. 6. Images?: The article only has one image, which is more than enough for now. The article "Thucydides" is a well-written and well-sourced article. Though the article does need a few more citations in order to become an A-class article, it is still good content-wise. Deucalionite 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Notes 63 and 64 cite someone called Peter Green, supporting a less than worshipful view of Thucydides (and his contemporary fans). I'd like to read more by Green on the topic, but both notes merely refer to an "op. cit." that isn't actually cited. (Also, isn't the use of "op. cit." deprecated in Wikipedia notes?) Anyway, I'd be grateful if someone could provide the full reference, and/or provide more in the same vein: anything that undemrines Thucydides' ludicrous reputation for "objectivity" or even "scientific history" (one of the great oxymorons of all time) would be welcome, if only to give a more balanced tone to a mostly far too favourable article. (signed) Herodotus Fan Club Member no. 001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.170.130 ( talk) 00:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Herodotus is called Thucydides' "predecessor" and even "his immediate predecessor". Predecessor in what sense? Although H. was older, they were contemporaries. Did T. succeed H. in some office? If so, which office? Or did T. in some other sense replace H.? If so, in what sense and how did that happen? -- Lambiam 07:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear @ Katolophyromai:. Re: the reversion of recent edits to Thucydides by @ Abahachi:. Whilst your reasoning for doing is fine, I find that language that you used to describe these changes as wholly inapproriate for dealing with edits by a new user. These were first edits by Abachi and your comments in the reversion notice were unsupportive and entirely failed to Assume good faith. I understand from Twitter that this user has just written a blog highlighting this - their first experience of editing - as their last as a result of these comments. Please try to treat new editors with a degree of courtesy in future and for the love of all that may or not be holy Please do not bite the newcomers! Zakhx150 ( talk) 13:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The infobox currently says he was born "c. 460 BC" and died "c. 400 BC (aged approximately 72)". The math doesn't work between those three numbers. Can anyone resolve this apparent contradiction? — Granger ( talk · contribs) 00:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thucydides was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article needs cleaning up a bit: new section for quotes; moving section about war to the actual article on the work; etc. Mat334 14:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
.
Hello,
I would like to submitt some pictures. How do i do
that? I have many pictures.
do you put it in via HTML?
Posted, December 13, 2005
i think the site needs more external links.
thanks.
Hello... I've been working on the entry a bit today, December 15th. I added some secondary references and cleaned up some of the other sections. Since Thucydides' only work was the History, there will be inevitable overlap between this entry and the History of the Peloponnesian War entry. It might be worthwhile to consider joining them at some point, but maybe that process would be too unwieldy? Just a thought...
Jim James Sullivan
I've removed the quotes section copied below) until we find sources for these.
Citations needed for quotes.
Indeed. then why are there still none, especially for the reappearance of the bogus last "quote"? (comment added by IP 12.216.25.204 on21:56, June 16, 2006)
Paul August ☎ 20:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed the section containing the erroneously attributed quote to reflect that it is inarguably not from Thucydides and to clarify it's actual origin. However, I feel it should remain in the article along side said clarification given the prevalence of the popular myth and Wikipedia's implied mission to not only disseminate information but to rectify misinformation as well whenever possible. JoeTheDrafter ( talk) 16:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This page http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/?p=3666 identifies the "fighting done by fools" quotation as actually belonging to a 1889 book by Sir William F. Butler about Gordon. I'll be removing the quote, if I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.42.9 ( talk) 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting read, concerned about the lead it needs a rewrite and expand particular concern This work is widely regarded a classic sounds weaselly without a cite. Suggest maybe a copy edit there are other weasel style sentences. I know a lot of the information isnt exactly concise.
Not a concern for GA but suggest that the references get changed to the <ref> <refname=????> <reference> style it saves time in the long run as this autonumbers references and adjusts with edits. Gnangarra 14:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations to the editors of this article Gnangarra 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, there are some problems with this article. To begin with, substantial material from the "life" section is not substantied "from Thucydides' History" as it claims to be. I think it necessary to demarcate clearly between material gleaned from the History and other material. Secondly, in the very first section, there is a reference to the scientific and detached character of the History. This seems irrelevant in an article about *Thucydides*. The opening blurb ought to talk about him. Will it mention the History? Of course. Should it go into depth about it? No. It should probably be formatted as: 1 Sentence identifying Thucyd. 2. Say he wrote the History. 3. Some summarizing sentence about his character, stature etc. I would have just gone ahead on done this, but the article is GA status and has had a lot of good work put into it, so I figured I'd discuss first! Have a good day! Jim 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope long-serving contributors to the Thucydides page won't mind my offering one suggestion. Neither that page, nor the one on the "History" itself, includes any discussion of Thucydides' distinctive stylistic traits, or much on the literary qualities of his book. Does anyone already have it in mind to draft something on these topics? If not, I could offer up something myself in due course for consideration by others - though I'm sure there are people on here much better qualified than I am to do so. John Winterton 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your response. I should finish my translation of Thucydides within the next few weeks, and will then have a go at a first draft of something on his style, for you and others to consider and improve.
Today someone linked sacred or profane in the quotation. Indeed the standard lexicon has established the view that ἱερά and ὅσια together mean "sacred and profane." But I recall that John Chadwick has questioned this pretty convincingly in his Lexicographica Graeca. Wareh 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that THUCYDIDES, above all, is a great philosopher and psychologist in the sense that he penetrates through the core of facts and expresses his views (albeit indirectly but certainly) letting it be known what he thinks of a certain situation. So, it is not only the historian but the thinker and philosopher, all together, that make the man special in historiography.{user: TERENCE KRIGAS, 27 August 2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.252.145 ( talk • contribs)
The second sentence "Thucydides is considered by many to be a scientific historian...." may be a problematic. There have been long and knotty arguments about what exactly defines "scientific history" and whether such a definition is even helpful. It would be better not to plunge the first-time reader of an encyclopedia article on Thucydides into that debate. I also would drop the reference to his systematic gathering of the evidence since nothing seems to be known about that. I propose to rewrite the second sentence as: "His work was the first study of the war-time policies of a nation analysed in terms of cause and effect and explaining the events of the past without reference to the action of the gods." ( RFB 16:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC))
A Citation is needed for one of the statements in the section "The History of the Peloponnesian War" for the statement: "as he himself states, were literary reconstructions rather than actual quotations of what was said — or, perhaps, what he believed ought to have been said. "( 67.194.68.36 ( talk) 03:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC))
I added a section on the influence of Thucycides and Herodotus. I started with two famous quotes from the end of book I, Chapter 1 (taken from the translation by Rex Warner, Penguin edition), normally assumed to refer to Herodotus. They have been replaced by a different quote, which seems less pertinent to me. I would like to change it back but let's talk. Best, ( RFB 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
The word ancient in the first sentence is redundant: modern Greeks were rather thin on the ground in the period 460-395 BC, so there's no risk of confusion. -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
The article fails entirely on lack of referencing. There are too few inline citations altogether, and the ones there are mostly cite Thucydides himself or other ancient writers. The article needs far more referencing to modern scholarship to pass WP:V. As for the few references to modern scholarship, these rely excessively on one writer (Momigliano). Lampman ( talk) 18:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Is not the problem largely that there is a separate article on Thucydides' book, which does indeed cite more recent scholarship? Quite why that separate article is needed is unclear to me, since Thucydides is not an author who wrote numerous works, or of whose life a great deal is known: for most practical purposes Thucydides is his book, and vice versa. At present there is an unhappy split of discussion of his work in two places. Should not the two articles be merged, which would help address the situation that led to the delisting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Winterton ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
Would the quotations section of this article perhaps be best transferred to a separate link on the WikiQuotes site, with a link to it about the bottom of this page? With compliments. DAFMM ( talk) 17:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed this quotation from Green, but some editor reverted me, claiming that he didn't trust me:
"The cleverest intellectual move Thucydides made was the severe limiting of what he deemed permissible as elements of historiography, on the grounds that everything else outside this canon was not only irrelevant but unserious. Out went personal anecdotes, most foreign ethnography and domestic or private motivation: out, above all, went anything to do with women. Religion was women's business, and mostly nonsense anyway, so that could be discarded too. The essence of history was war and politics, as conducted by men in authority. His exclusive privileging of the male political association, in its most public form, became accepted, and historians (being political males themselves) were not inclined to argue. His revisionism not only won out at the time, but established the basic principles of historiography for over two millennia.[24]"
Green is admittedly an established scholar, but this paragraph is nothing but speculation without a shred of evidence. It definitely does not represent Green's best work. On the Humanities reference desk, I recently asked whether the statement "religion was women's business, and mostly nonsense anyway, so that could be discarded too" had any basis in Thucydides' work. Neither I nor any ref desk volunteers could find any reference to either religion or women in the History of the Peloponnesian War. There is no evidence suggesting that Thucydides thought religion was women's business, or that religion really was women's business in ancient Athens, or that the fact it was women's business had anything to do with why Thucydides was atheistic in his treatment of history. In fact, it seems that Green is saying the only reason people don't believe in gods is because they hate women!
Green makes the extraordinary claim that "out, above all, went anything to do with women", but everything we know about ancient Greece suggests that women played no role in public life, and certainly no role in the military. Green goes against this firmly established historical fact derived from numerous sources--Athenian laws, contemporary writings, public records, etc--and postulates that Thucydides threw out everything to do with women, all without offering any evidence.
What bothers me the most is that Green tries to discredit 2 millenia of historiography. That's an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence, being based on speculations about Thucydides that no other scholars (as far as I can tell) share. I therefore conclude that it's the historical equivalent of pseudoscience, and has no place on Wikipedia. -- 140.180.242.9 ( talk) 21:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The photograph I've removed is the same as the one that is identified on the Herodotus page as a "Roman copy of a purported bust of Herodotus." Since the Thucydides page is linked to the Herodotus page, and there is already another photographic representation of Herodotus on this page, it seems inappropriate to retain this image. Activist ( talk) 19:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/48/Hansen.pdf http://europa.eu/scadplus/european_convention/objectives_en.htm
The theory that the landings in America by Columbus caused a revival of interest in Herodotus is very far-fetched. I am wondering what it is doing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.72.219 ( talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
"Cicero calls Herodotus the "father of history;" yet the Greek writer Plutarch, in his Moralia (Ethics) denigrated Herodotus, as the "father of lies"."
Plutarch never used this expression, although he criticized some of his lies. It was invented, I believe by Juan Luis Vives, De Disciplinis. Cf. A. Momigliano, Herodotus in the History of Historiography, Secondo contributo, p. 41-42.
Fabrice Ferrer ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Coming to this article with no knowledge of Thucydides, I am unsure after reading it whether The History of the Peloponnesian War was his only work, or whether he produced other works too. Can it be made explicit, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.222.112 ( talk) 10:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Thucydides. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thucydides/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
1. Well written?: Good mechanics. Very few errors in spelling/grammar. Smooth transition between paragraphs and sentences.
2. Factually accurate?: The article is factually accurate based on the references shown. 3. Broad in coverage?: Though the article is somewhat short, thoroughness of content is evident. 4. Neutral point of view?: The biases expressed in the sources are all expressed in the article. 5. Article stability?: Stability evident. 6. Images?: The article only has one image, which is more than enough for now. The article "Thucydides" is a well-written and well-sourced article. Though the article does need a few more citations in order to become an A-class article, it is still good content-wise. Deucalionite 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Notes 63 and 64 cite someone called Peter Green, supporting a less than worshipful view of Thucydides (and his contemporary fans). I'd like to read more by Green on the topic, but both notes merely refer to an "op. cit." that isn't actually cited. (Also, isn't the use of "op. cit." deprecated in Wikipedia notes?) Anyway, I'd be grateful if someone could provide the full reference, and/or provide more in the same vein: anything that undemrines Thucydides' ludicrous reputation for "objectivity" or even "scientific history" (one of the great oxymorons of all time) would be welcome, if only to give a more balanced tone to a mostly far too favourable article. (signed) Herodotus Fan Club Member no. 001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.170.130 ( talk) 00:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Herodotus is called Thucydides' "predecessor" and even "his immediate predecessor". Predecessor in what sense? Although H. was older, they were contemporaries. Did T. succeed H. in some office? If so, which office? Or did T. in some other sense replace H.? If so, in what sense and how did that happen? -- Lambiam 07:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear @ Katolophyromai:. Re: the reversion of recent edits to Thucydides by @ Abahachi:. Whilst your reasoning for doing is fine, I find that language that you used to describe these changes as wholly inapproriate for dealing with edits by a new user. These were first edits by Abachi and your comments in the reversion notice were unsupportive and entirely failed to Assume good faith. I understand from Twitter that this user has just written a blog highlighting this - their first experience of editing - as their last as a result of these comments. Please try to treat new editors with a degree of courtesy in future and for the love of all that may or not be holy Please do not bite the newcomers! Zakhx150 ( talk) 13:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The infobox currently says he was born "c. 460 BC" and died "c. 400 BC (aged approximately 72)". The math doesn't work between those three numbers. Can anyone resolve this apparent contradiction? — Granger ( talk · contribs) 00:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)