Talk:Corinthian War

Cite template change

I have reverted the insertion of a {{cite book}} template for the first reference to the "Corinthian War" article in the Oxford Classical Dictionary. I did this because

1. Simon Hornblower is the editor, not the author, of the OCD, and
2. the reference with the template inserted doesn't list the specific article in the book that is being cited.

I don't know if there is an appropriate template for citing a work like the OCD; if so, there would be no harm in using that, but cite book led to a rather misleading reference. --Robth^Talk 14:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

5th century

The featured article blurb omits the "bc" after 5th century when refering to the Athenian Empire, it looks a little confusing. L0b0t 12:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

I understand that the standard for spelling of Greek place names currently is to use "k" in place of "c," as it is a hard sound. On that note, however, why is it not spelled "Korinth," then? I ask not to be clever, but out of a genuine curiousity. --Raulpascal 18:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's changed actually; it was at one time the standard to use a "k"--which makes sense, as the Greek letter being transliterated is "Κ" (kappa). This changed at some point in the twentieth century, however, presumably because "k" is a very awkward letter in English, and spellings like "Corinth" are now universally used. --Robth^Talk 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture is wrong

That depicts the Macedonian phalanx, not the classical Greek phalanx used during the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Xenophon?

It seems like most of this article relies upon Xenophon for its narrative. It's a primary source, so doesn't that constitute Original Research? Seeing as this is a featured article, is there some sort of exception in this case which allows extensive reliance upon a primary source? Chamboz (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, Xenophon is the chief historical narrative for Greek history at this time; the only other narrative would be the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, which only covers a tiny slice of the period. Inscriptions, maybe some papyri, & incidental mentions in poems & such complete the remainder of the primary sources.

It would help this article to have a section discussing the primary sources, especially since this is rated a "Featured Article". -- llywrch (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Llywrch: I think what Chamboz is trying to say is that, per WP:PRIMARY, we are not supposed to use primary sources unless we have secondary sources interpreting them, because relying exclusively on primary sources almost always results in WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. To answer that question, this article became a "Featured Article" back in 2006 when our standards for what could become a "Featured Article" were far, far more relaxed than they are today. Virtually all our other Featured Articles relating to classical Greece, including Pericles, Aspasia, Alcibiades, Epaminondas, Demosthenes, and no doubt plenty of others, all share this exact same fault. I doubt any of them would pass FAC if they were put forth as candidates today, which is quite sad because they are actually all very well-written, well-illustrated, and comprehensive and, apart from this one flaw that they all share, they are all perfectly fine Featured Articles. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I knew that, Katolophyromai; I had come here from the list of FAC needing review. ;-) My comment was also partly addressed to whomever came along to perform a formal review, or decided to undertake the responsibility of revising this article to meet FA standards. (I don't know enough about ancient Greek historiography to undertake this revision myself.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Cite EB1911

@ User:Aza24 at 02:55, 28 September 2020 you made an edit to the article (diff) in which you added an article title to EB1911. If the text of the EB1911 article is not copied into the Wikipedia article please use {{cite EB1911}} rather than {{EB1911}} so that the Wikipedia article is added to the correct maintenance categories. I have checked index Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vol 7:2 and can not find the article "Corinthian War". Please can you add the correct EB article name (along with the volume and page number so it is a full citation)? -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

PBS my edit was solely to remove the harv error that the citation created by using sfn but not referencing something in the bibliography. I have no idea what the original intention of whoever first put it there was so I'm afraid I can't be much help here. In any case, as a featured article, this should ideally be sourcing references higher quality than Britannica 1911, in fact, I wonder if the reference is even needed since there's another one in the same place? Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:Aza24 the tool Wikipedia:WikiBlame is very useful in answering the question "what the original intention of whoever first put it there was" because it makes it easy to identify the editor and ask them and so fix errors like this. -- PBS (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The reference was added by user:पाटलिपुत्र at 11:26, 9 March 2019 (diff) usually such short hanging citations are caused by an internal copy from another Wikipedia article (often without the correct copyright notice in the edit history) see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Other reasons for attributing text. Using the text string "which were returned to the Athenians" I identified this as text copied from the Wikipedia article Antalcidas as of (Revision on 4 August 2017)

The full citation given in the Wikipedia article is:

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911), "Antalcidas", Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 2 (11th ed.), Cambridge University Press, p. 88

That EB page contains the text "all other Greek cities—so far as they were not under Persian rule—were to be independent, except Lemnos, Imbros and Scyros, which were to belong, as formerly, to the Athenians." So the text in this article also needs the full EB attribution

@user:पाटलिपुत्र please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, in particular "A statement in the edit summary such as copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution will direct interested parties to the edit history of the source page, where they can trace exactly who added what content when".

-- PBS (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review

This article promoted to FA in 2006 is really not up to FA standards anymore and should be delisted. Several passages are just paraphrasing Xenophon, who was strongly pro-Spartan. Very important sources are missing (Hamilton 1979, Cartledge 1979 & 1987, Robin Seager in the Cambridge Ancient History 6, among many others). T8612 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

MOS:SANDWICH corrected, uncited text. It appears that this article is not watched; the main contributor has not edited for 10 years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding to WP:FARGIVEN SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)