Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Spartathenian (talk · contribs) 14:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 04:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Czarking0 (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Czarking0. I'll try to help as much as I can. Best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• With bluetext like conservatism you should be mindful about anachronistic links. The conservatism page you linked to was not about Ancient greek politics but abut a political movement beginning in western Europe in the 18th century.

I agree. I did have doubts about that link. Thanks for undoing it.

• Bury p.266 does not mention Laurion nor Nicias so I would call FN1 a failed spot check

I wonder if you have a different edition because the citation is definitely correct using my book, which is a hardback Fourth Edition published by Macmillan in 1975. I've included "edition=4th" in the bibliography entry. The piece is at the bottom of that page under a section headed "Nicias and Cleon. Politics at Athens", in chapter 10. It describes Nicias as "a wealthy conservative slave-owner" whose slaves worked "in the silver mines of Laurion". It goes on to say how his party was "out of sympathy with", and "bitterly opposed to the new politicians like Cleon".

I see, I am using the 1st edition freely available here this material is on page 409 there

• I question if conservative applies here at all? The Britannica source calls it the aristocratic party. This would seem to me to be the authoritative source on the naming even if some Brit from the 19th century decided to call the party conservative. If you want to keep this in I would expect to see sources showing it is a common name.

This is the adjectival form of conservative (small 'c'), not the Conservative (Tory) Party. Bury is saying that the aristocrats were conservative in outlook as they were averse to change, whereas the popular party democrats of Cleon and Alcibiades were radical in outlook.

I don't think "adverse to change" is fair summary of Bury. As for "radical" that is another conversation outside the scope of the article. Bury indicates Nicias advocated for the depopulation of Delos and revival of Apollonian festivals and games. That is change. I recognize Bury uses conservative, but find it notable that Britannica chooses to leave this out.Czarking0 (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to remember that the EB piece is a brief summary, whereas Bury's work is a detailed history. Also, like WP, EB accrues its content from works like Bury. My use of "averse" was in the generic sense that people with a conservative outlook tend to favour the status quo. Their policy on Delos was a specific. Spartathenian (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this idea of political opposition could use some more citing. My understanding is party politics as thought of today do not emerge until the 19th century; however, Britannica does use this party language so maybe that is the way to go.

We see all through classical history, not only the Athenian democracy but also the Roman Republic, that factions existed in direct opposition to each other. I think 'party' does evoke modern politics in which formally constituted parties vie for government. The Athenian 'parties' were ad hoc, and interchangeable from issue to issue. I think it is better to think of Cleon leading the pro-war faction, and Nicias the pro-peace faction. The problem then is that these sources use the term 'party', not 'faction'.

First this doesn't change my mind on the fact that you should have an additional source where you talk about this. Second, your simplification to party politics oversimplifies the actual workings of this government. Bury highlights how Nicias was not always in accordance with Pericles while Britannica highlights them working together. These are not really simple party lines.

To address this concern, I've revised the thrust of the second paragraph to reduce the impression of party politics and place greater emphasis on how Nicias became the aristocrat leader. Spartathenian (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Czarking0 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• J. B. Bury wrote that Nicias lacked the ability to lead a political party, since he "had not the qualities of a leader or a statesman" Can you explain why this is a notable POV claim? It seems in contrast with Britannica which states he was popular. As for how Nicias came to wield influence, Bury referred to his honesty and integrity in that he was impervious to bribes. He was also considered respectable, given his family background, and he was acknowledged to be well acquainted with military details; but perhaps his strongest quality was his devoutly unscrupulous devotion to religion. The rest of this just seems so questionable? Also the writing is not very encyclopedic. The one throughline between both sources seems to be his religious devotion. I would at least keep that part, but more like "He was a devout practitioner and financial patron of the state religion".

Chisholm in EB follows Thucydides in favouring Nicias, but Bury views him in terms of his undeniable failures. So, yes, there is contrast and we should present that. Using a modern comparison, Johnson was an unmitigated disaster as British prime minister, and yet he was popular among Conservatives. The passage you question describes the various means by which Nicias achieved leadership of the aristocrats, and his religious fervour was but one single aspect. Chisholm is content to say Nicias was popular among his own faction or party, and that is nowhere near enough. Bury provides analysis to explain how Nicias reached the top, and how he repeatedly failed once he got there.

You seem to doubt Bury's reputation as an eminent classical historian. He was not just "some Brit from the 19th century", and his analysis cannot be dismissed as "so questionable" or as a "POV claim". You say the passage is "not very encyclopaedic", but it summarises Bury's analytical findings having studied Nicias' "qualities of a leader and a statesman". That the passage provides analysis is encyclopaedic, whereas a flat statement that Nicias was devout and popular among his own supporters would be anything but.

• You response here highlights a number of misunderstands, but I especially go out of my way to do GAR for newer GA nominators so I want to take a moment to break down what I am saying. When I say you are making a POV claim, I am not saying that because I think this is a POV claim. I am saying that because the way you wrote the sentence according to WP:MOS indicates that it is a POV claim. The first paragraph here captures how to prevent POV claim WP:OPINION. Specifically if you say "Bury says Nicias is a bad leader". Then you are making a POV claim. POV claims have a higher burden for notability because articles should strive to present WP:NPOV.Czarking0 (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence has been rewritten now as part of the above-mentioned revision to address the 'party' issue. Even so, it was not a POV claim because it wasn't written as a fact. It was Bury's view based on his expert analysis and it contained a quote. POV would be stating an opinion as fact in Wikipedia's voice without mentioning Bury. Spartathenian (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSOPINION Czarking0 (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't doubt, know, or care if Bury is an eminent classical historian. I care if he is a reliable source according to WP:RS, and to what extent other RS contradict Bury. Being an eminent classical historian does not make someone an RS. When I see Britannica, which I know to be a reliable source, choose to not use a term that this 19th century author used, I makes me think we should follow their example.Czarking0 (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see above re EB piece as a brief summary only. Bury is an impeccable source, like Thucydides, but EB is merely useful for one or two points. Spartathenian (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If anyone's explanation for how anyone got to any position of power was that they were 'honest, had integrity, and did not take bribes' then I would conclude that they are not really interested how that person got to power. If that was how anyone anywhere got to power there would be a lot of turtles in the government. Note again, how Britannica does not say any of this.Czarking0 (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The blunders by Nicias beg the questions of how and why the aristocrats chose him as their political leader. Bury has answered those questions in his detailed history. EB does not say it because their piece is a brief summary only. Spartathenian (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• When I say something is not encyclopedic I mean it not inline with WP:MOS. The use of perhaps here is against MOS:ACCUSED/MOS:WEASEL. In general you should double check this article for WP:WTWCzarking0 (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If a single word like "perhaps" is perceived to be inappropriate, please just flag that up or be WP:BOLD and edit it yourself per GAI. Incidentally, "perhaps" does not occur in any of the three pages you've mentioned. I do not agree that there is a need to double-check the whole article for WTW. If you find any dubious words, please flag them in this review and I'll attend to them. I've removed the instance of "perhaps", by the way, as I agree it distorted the sense of the statement. Spartathenian (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• He paid for the construction of a bridge of boats between Delos and Rheneia. This bridge, extravagantly decorated with garlands and tapestry, enabled a richly-dressed chorus to walk across to Rheneia. Nicias donated 10,000 drachma, so the Delians could continue to stage the event, and pray on his behalf. His instructions were engraved on a pillar. I would be slightly more clear that the rest of this is all Plutarch's account.

Done. Merged two of the sentences, and repeated the Plutarch citation where there is a shift of context.

• Do you have another source for what happened to Lesbos? Your source says it was "reduced" which sounds to me like it way "waylaid", or "destroyed". You say it was seized which it is not clear to me that is inline with the history?

In English as used in GB, "reduced" in this context means "subdued". In fact, the Lesbians had revolted against Athens so the action in 428 concerned suppression of the revolt.

• FN6 does not say strategos so this seems like WP:OR can you quote (here not in the article) what led you to make this claim? Update: I see Bury says strategos you need to add the sources the terms come from.

If you look at the 2024 version of the article, you'll see that this sentence with its two dates was a hangover from then. I should have removed it earlier, and so I've done that now. Also, the reference following The operations were a success is from page 91, not 51, so I amended that too.

• Nicias challenged Cleon to join a commission which would visit Pylos and Sphacteria to verify the situation. Cleon responded that Nicias was wasting time and should be attacking the Spartan stronghold, not besieging it. I think this is not exactly it. The sources have Cleon challenging Nicias to finish the job first. Then Nicias basically saying, if it's so easy you do it. I don't see anything about wasting time and it certainly seems like a Cleon started it sort of situation. Also in the next paragraph Bury basically says he doesn't believe this story so this whole thing should be presented as a POV claim from Thucydides.

I agree that this was too close to "he said, he said" so I've summarised it to focus on the main points.

• My read of MOS:JARGON says to leave ecclesia out (maybe strategos as well) assembly works fine.

Probably best to use the Greek word first time with the translation in brackets: e.g., strategos (general of the army); ecclesia (assembly).

• My reading of the sources leads me to believe that his religion should be covered a bit in the military section.

I don't think it's relevant unless he took a military decision based on religious reasons, as he did following the eclipse in Sicily. Do you have any specific instance in mind?

• I am seriously doubting Bury as an RS. He may be an impeccable source but for GAR we only care about RS. For old books of note, later book reviews are a good insight into their reliability. I found one review published in 1900s with positive remarks on its reliability. This does not surprise me as I am mostly curious if it is still reliable over 100 years later. I found another review of the History of Greece to Death of Alexander The Great. Published on JSTOR available through WP:TWL. Published in 1977, it does not have such great things to say about his reliability, "Bury's two tribes are an unsubstantiated fantasy." Overall, I think it is ok to use this source sometimes but in places where we may be concerned about the language being outdated or he is contradicted by more modern material then we should rethink how much we want to rely on Bury.

You might as well doubt Thucydides as an RS. Every work of history in existence has passages, mostly opinions, that someone else has challenged. That is inevitable, for ancient times especially, because research is restricted to a limited amount of information. All the historian can do is analyse the sparse evidence available and deduce the story from his analysis. That applies to all historians including Nicholas Hammond, who was himself distinguished, particularly for his work on Macedonia, but he has had his critics too. You need to read the introduction to WP:OPINION, and what it says about cognitive perspectives and hard facts. One thing you have overlooked is that Bury's work is a standard scholarly reference in British education.

Correct I don't think Thucydides should be used as a RS. I don't see how he meets the WP:RS criteria. Czarking0 (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further, with reference to Hammond's "two tribes" point, that was prehistoric, and Hammond's multiple tribes are equally unsubstantiated. The truth is that, like everything in prehistory, we don't actually know. All we can do, repeating what I said above, is analyse the available evidence and put forward a theory based on that analysis, which both Bury and Hammond have done.

Finally, Nicias was not a prehistoric figure, so to raise Hammond's "two tribes" stuff here is completely irrelevant. The real source for Nicias is Thucydides, who was certainly methodical, but was he always correct? Both Bury and Hammond have studied Thucydides in depth, and both have sometimes disagreed with him. But all three are reliable sources for Nicias and the Peloponnesian War. I should add that I don't have Hammond's Classical Age of Greece (1975) and it is many years since I've seen it.

• ] J. B. Bury argued that this policy was misguided. He supported Cleon's counter-argument that Athens should not have pursued peace "until the success of Brasidas had been decisively checked", and some degree of prestige restored.[15] Bury said the resolve of the Athenians was undermined by Nicias and Laches, whose case rested on "the feelings of the hour", whereas Cleon called on them "to weigh considerations of policy". This quite a lot of Bury opinion, I struggle to see how this Monday night quarterbacking (not sure how to make this phrase British) from 2000 years later is notable.

I don't understand what point you are making here, and you need to talk about specifics. If you are again saying that Bury is unreliable, that is unacceptable, because his opinions count as per WP:OPINION, and I have made clear that the passage is his argument in favour of Cleon.

No, I do not get "Monday night quarterbacking", and I don't think the use of such vague slang is appropriate. For your information, I have an American friend working over here who hails from Hoboken (famous for Frank Sinatra), and he has supported the New York Jets his whole life. I've asked him what MNQ means, and he hasn't a clue.

Your comments on the GA discussion page stating that all historians are obligated to Monday morning quarterback (apparently most people say morning) get to the heart of what I am trying to say here. Historians are obligated to say who scored in the game, who got injured, and who substituted. They are not obligated to say who should have substituted instead and how the team might have scored more points if they passed the ball more.

• Your comments on EB made me realize there is just a broader problem of these sources being very old. I assume the EB source uses the 1911 version for copyright reasons, but the fact that EB publishes revisions is quite useful here. Their current webpage does not say anything about his politics, but I don't know what to make of that. In short, a more recent edition of EB should probably be used.

I've given this some thought, and I believe it would be best to have this article reviewed by a different editor, preferably one with considerable site experience. There is no way that a fair review can be completed if the reviewer has entrenched views about the reliability of a major classical historian, and some of the comments made have been entirely inappropriate.

I have only completed one GA review myself, and am currently working on a second. Before I began, I checked past reviews by experienced editors to see if there is a definitive approach and layout. While there are always variations, I could see that the reviewer typically completes the entire process first before committing anything to the GA1 page, and that presentation is for the most part done by bullet points which can easily be addressed. Obviously, some complex points may need a paragraph or two of rationale.

That has not happened here. Instead, points have been presented sporadically in lengthy chunks, and with considerable repetition. This is especially so with the reviewer's insistence that J. B. Bury is non-RS, and that his analyses and opinions should not be included in the article, despite guidelines like WP:OPINION saying that the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources. I am also unwilling to accept comments like "some Brit from the 19th century" and "Monday night quarterbacking" as rational arguments with which to denigrate J. B. Bury. In addition, there have been a number of claims made on behalf the 1911 article about Nicias in Britannica, which is a mere summary, though it has been useful for a couple of citations—otherwise, it is incomparable with a detailed history like Bury, whose work is a scholastic standard in Britain and, I am told, Australia too.

I understand from WP:GAI that a second opinion can be obtained, but it seems I cannot request it myself via the "GA nominee" template. I'd appreciate it if this can be arranged. I'll be happy to have this review closed and the nomination placed in the queue again, if necessary. Spartathenian (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like WP:GAN/I#2O indicates that I am the one who should request a second opinion if I am unsure about the criteria. I am not willing to do so at this time. Here is a link that shows my user history. Not sure what you consider someone with considerable site experience.

"reviewer's insistence that J. B. Bury is non-RS" Actually I have not claimed he is not RS. I have pointed out my concerns/doubts about his reliability and you have not provided an argument/sources as to why he is RS other than calling him impeccable and eminent. You saying he is those things does not make him RS.

"his analyses and opinions should not be included in the article" I did not say that. I asked for additional sources and in some cases felt like he was given too much weight. This is not me saying he should not be included in the article.

Here is some google-fu Czarking0 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czarking0, per WP:GAN/I#N3, I am formally withdrawing this nomination. You are required to fail the review and close the discussion. Kindly do that as soon as possible. Thank you. Spartathenian (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WIP: This articles has a number of issues which mostly stem from the sources only being published in the late 19th and early 20th century. After the first few paragraphs there is mostly a single source used. I would also take care to not use Thucydides as an RS. These can probably be corrected with a critical eye to what opinions should be given due weight, what should be presented as fact, and using more modern sources. The Sealey source is interesting (1976).

• In estimating the character of the Athenian people, we must not forget their choice of this hero of conscientious indecision This is an odd quote.
• I would remove the Greek jargon.
• he stood against Nicias for election as It is not clear what this means.
• urged Athens to conclude the Argive alliance This is the first time the Argive alliance is mention so maybe some introduction is notable before it is concluded?
• Battle of Mantinea - this seems like a lot about thing the subject is not involved in.
• That they were able to recover was because the Athenians failed to capitalise on their advantage—they failed to support their Argive allies when needed. I don't think this is a good summary of the source. I believe you are referring to this?

  On this occasion, Agis observed that the Mantineans, who were on the right wing of the foe, stretched far beyond his own left wing, and fearing it would be disastrously outflanked and sur¬ rounded, gave a signal to the troops of his extreme left to make a lateral movement further towards the left; and at the same time he commanded two captains on his right to move their divisions round to fill up the gap thus created. The first order was executed, but the two captains refused to move. The result was that the ex¬ treme left was isolated, and utterly routed, while a band of 1000 chosen Argives dashed through the gap. On the right, however, the Lacedaemonians were completely victorious over the Athenians and other allies. The Athenians would have been surrounded and utterly at the mercy of their foes, if Agis had not recalled his troops to assist his discomfited left wing. Both La ches and Nico stratus fell.

• Bury has exaggerated Bury does not claim to be exaggerating here and you do not provide a second source so this is original research.
• Syracuse prepared for the inevitable conflict, which began in the spring of 414 There is a coverage issue here. Nicias spent the winter seeking allies then started the conflict in the winter with his attack outside the Great Harbor which they won. From Burry page 453 in the version I linked I believe 299 in your version.

Nominator has requested this be withdrawn and I failing it according to this procedure. Here is where I think the table stands right now.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I highlighted a couple places where it is unclear
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Just fixed a couple more of these, I think this is good now?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I think Bury should not be relied on so heavily.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Tagged, one not sure on rest of article needs source improvement anyway.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pretty much all the sources are out of copyright anyway
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I identified at least one coverage issue. I think if more sources were added additional coverage issues would surface.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pretty good. I would maybe try to trim a little
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This reads like only Bury's POV matters. I certainly think it is a notable one but other, more recent, scholars should be included.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Love the images in this article
	7. Overall assessment.	Procedural failure by nomination withdrawal