Talk:Aspasia/Archive 1

Comments

Moved to talk, needs some explanation and NPOV. —siroχo

Aspacia and Socrates were very good friends and their conversations are intellectually very engaging.

In Plato's dialogue Menexenus, Socrates says "That I should be able to make the speech would be nothing wonderful, Menexenus; for she who is my instructor is by no means weak in the art of rhetoric; on the contrary, she has turned out many fine orators, and amongst them one who surpassed all other Greeks, Pericles, the son of Xanthippus." So, she was apparently one of his teachers, at least. Adam Bishop 15:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Plato is ironical. He wants to cast aspersions on Pericles' rhetorical fame.--Yannismarou 11:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what is the source for the claim "...but closer to the Japanese geisha"??

"A courtesan is a person paid and/or supported in return for providing social companionship and intimate liaisons to more than one partner." Says the courtesan article.

If we tell she is a courtesan, her social role is to look pretty and have sex for money. A geisha did a lot more talking (before sex) and played an important role during non-sexual occasions, like a tea ceremony. Her role was socially accepted, the courtesan not. The author tried an explanation and does not have sources, so you could point out it is original research. Wandalstouring 13:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I added information and citation. I also removed the template "disputed". I donot see much of a dispute here! After all, now almost all the assessments and the statements are citated. I intend to continue the rewriting of the article.--Yannismarou 12:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then the courtesan article needs work; courtesan and prositute have different (if overlapping) meanings. Septentrionalis 05:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I am not the one who is going to rewrite the courtesan article!--Yannismarou 07:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected Feature Article

Why has this article been made a Featured article and kept unprotected? -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 19:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lysicles

If the source for Aspasia's marriage to Lysicles is Plutarch, it fails verificaiion. The translation cited says:

And Aeschines2 says that Lysicles the sheep-dealer, a man of low birth and nature, came to be the first man at Athens by living with Aspasia after the death of Pericles. [1]

The Greek word in synonta, which is as broad as the English. Both can mean "live together as man and wife", but need not do so. A secondary source would be necessary for this interpretation and I don't see one cited; I consulted the the OCD and they say "took up with".

(added in edit conflict)We should not, in any case, use "allegedly" married; the worst possible weasel-word is one that doesn't weasel.

It is also unconventional, when ancient source A cites B, and B's text cannot be verified, to mention B in text. We know that ancient authors have misquoted and misunderstood other ancient authors; but this one is easy to fix. Septentrionalis 05:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. The Perseus encyclopedia says "married", but the OCD is the better of those two; barring a more authoritative source weighing in, we'll probably have to stick with "took up with" or "lived with" or something. --Robth^Talk 05:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the advantage of precise citation; if I knew this came from Perseus, I would have gone there, as I now will. Septentrionalis 05:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that it originally did come from there; I just now turned that up while searching Perseus for relevant texts. --Robth^Talk 05:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Plutarch

Two quotations for the Perseus encyclopedia are worth bearing in mind. On the one hand, "Modern scholars agree that the basic facts of Aspasia's life as recorded by Diodoros the Athenian (FGrHist 372 F 40 ), Plutarch (Plut. Per. 24.3 ) and the lexicographers are correct." This may in context be a quite limited statement; but as far as it goes, we can put the sources for citizenship, birthdate, and so forth in the notes.

On the other hand, "Plutarch relates more information about Aspasia than any other ancient author. Unfortunately, Plutarch's Lives are full of distortions and historical inaccuracies. His purpose in the Lives was to exemplify the virtues and vices of great men, not to write history." And, as they add, much of what he does say is from Athenian comedies. Septentrionalis 05:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I welcome any additional sources, but I' sure that, if you do deep inside Aspasia's life you'll find a lot of contradictions as I did!--Yannismarou 07:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure; but we should present secondary sources on the contradictions. Septentrionalis 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I do! At least in most cases.--Yannismarou 19:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you do; just making a point of principle. Septentrionalis 04:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why I think "allegedly" is still necessary

Stadter's comment about Aspasia's "involvement" with Lysicles (Stadter has written the most detailed commentary on Plutarch):

"Lysicles was mocked for his connection with trade, as was Cleon "the tan- ner," though both were wealthy men. He may be identical with the general who died in action in Caria in 428/27 (Thuc. 3.19.1; cf. Gomme, HCT ad loc.; PA 9417). If so, it raises the question when Aspasia began to associate with him, as Pericles had died only shortly before. Was it while Pericles was still alive? Aspasia's rela- tion to Lysicles, like that to Pericles, furnished material for the comic poets and philosophers. The name of his son, Poristes ("Supplier"), is extraordinary and may be a comedian's joke. As- pasia could not have been his legal wife any more than Pericles'."

So I think "involved with" is indeed better than "married". I just want to explain why I still regrad "allegedly" necessary. Because we are not even sure if Aspasia hat any involvement with Lysicle. I repeat what Khan says:

"According to Kahn, stories, such as Socrates' visits to Aspasia along with his friends' wives and Lysicles' connection with Aspasia, are not likely to be historical. He believes that Aeschines was indifferent to the historicity of his Athenian stories and that these stories must have been invented at a time, when the date of Lysicles' death had been forgotten, but his occupation still remembered."

I've noted that in the article. So we have two ananswered questions:

• Had Aspasia any kind of relationship with Lysicles?
• If they had a relationship, were they married?

So, that is way the best phrasing for the lead in: "she was allegedly involved with Pericles". That is what I edited, but I'm open to any proposals.--Yannismarou 15:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest explaining who alleged the involvement; but, on second thought, why is Lysicles in the intro at all? If I knew why, it would help in suggesting phrasing. Septentrionalis 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the lead summarizes the article and Lysicles is (probably) a part of her life!--Yannismarou 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. Everything in this article is a part of her life, but it can't all go into the lead. But I have an idea on how to replace allegedly, which has become overused in English. Septentrionalis 04:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Notes section

While I think it a nice touch that the notes section is ordered alpha, beta, gamma, etc., is that just a clever tie-in to the relation of the subject of the article to Greece, or is that how a Notes section is typically done? Just curious, it's cute but is it within the WP:MOS guidelines? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not that uncommon to do it that way in classics. On Wikipedia it's obviously not too common, but when we have both textual endnotes and reference endnotes, it's useful to separate the two and use different kinds of markers, so if references use numbers, textual notes need something else. I suppose they could use Latin letters a,b,c,..., or the traditional asterisk/dagger/etc., but I don't see a big problem with using Greek numerals in this article, personally. --Delirium 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, that's pretty cool. I'll have to show that off on my next ancient history paper… ;-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed it and thought it was a clever way to separate the notes from the references, while at the same time not interfering with the rest of the article. Well done. ~ UBeR 04:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OR?

Hi This is clearly an excellent article, but is also original research, that's what makes it so good. How come, then, that some wikipedians insist on dleting material that has been assembled from different sorces as OR? Tony 13:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Tony

Excuse me! Something you got wrong here. Nothing is OR in this article!--Yannismarou 15:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Bootch is my favorite person ever

This phrase in the intro has to be cancelled, but i cannot find it in the edit page! can anyone delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.48.126.28 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Already did. · AO ^Talk 15:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalized?

I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the moderators. When I saw this article featured, I clicked 'more' to read the rest. I found that the page had been vandalized (there were incongruous references to 'penis', 'vagina', and 'ball sack', which clearly had nothing to do with the article). When I logged in, I found the vandalism was gone. While I suppose it may have been corrected in the brief time span between my noticing it and logging in, I wonder if the vandalism only displays on the non-logged in version of the page? Arijaal 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)arijaal

It seems like an ongoing problem. Maybe it should be protected? Kajmal 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Click on the history tab for this article and you'll see the recent efforts made to keep this article pristine against a vandal attack. Ian Cairns 19:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This Article Stinks

There are no ancient sources given for the claim that she was not a prostitute, which is an opinion I think the ancient authors were actually unanimous on, weren't they? The only sources cited presently on the issue are modern sources. The ancient authors who claimed that she was a whore certainly weren't all "comic poets." It's obvious that there is some feminist revisionism going on here. The view of the contributors here needs to address the tradition that she was a prostitute, rather than simply burying them under modern feminist interpretations. Sources, ladies. Ocanter 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm not a lady. Second, modern sources ("secondary sources") are equally respected. Now, ancient sources are esteemed, but they are not uncontested. And, whether you like it or not, this article will respect all voices and different opinions. Your edits are reverted.--Yannismarou 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! And by the way, Fornara and Samons, two of the many modern scholars who question the tradition of the ancient comic playwrights are neither "pheminist ladies".--Yannismarou 15:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finally responding to my criticism. This article lacks a NPOV. I'm trying to balance the scales. Modern sources are respected, in a way, but the modern sources cited here are not representative of all the scholarship in the area. In particular, Xiu Lin Gale's response to this school of feminist historical fiction is not represented. I will try to cite some of that when I'm back at work Monday. In the meantime, please follow your own advice and allow some more neutral voices to be represented. You'll notice I didn't delete any actual information. I only reworded the feminist interpretations, which, as I mentioned, lack a NPOV. Classicists generally do not hold the view that, before I made my edits, dominated the article. Most classicists think she was a whore. Our readers should be aware of that. Even with my edits, a NPOV is lacking. We should present all the information. We should not be telling people whether she was a whore or not. We should merely make the evidence clear. Ocanter 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't accept any of your changes, without previous discussion for each change seperately that you want to make. This article is FA, meaning that it has reached a high level of quality, and I intend to keep this high standerds despite your repetitive efforts to erode them. If you want to introduce particular changes, propose them first here, in order to discuss them. Without consensus no change of yours is acceptable.--Yannismarou 17:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• "We should present all the information. We should not be telling people whether she was a whore or not. We should merely make the evidence clear." That is exactly what I am doing here; I'm presenting both sides and all the opinions. On the contrary, you blatantly promote your own POV, trying to prove that she definitely was whore, rewording or removing whatever impedes this goal of yours. Try, at least, to keep a consistency between actions and words, and do not nihilate the principles you declared here with your own actions. Unfortunately, you are contradicting yourself.--Yannismarou 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• "Most classicists think she was a whore. Our readers should be aware of that." Instead of making unconstructive, uncyclopedic and unscientific edits, dedicate your valuable wikitime in naming these sources of yours. In the article, I mention many modern scholars who question ancient sources. Do some proper job, and cite your sources, if you want to change the essence of this article. Otherwise, your insistence in this article is nothing more than a blatant POV-pushing that I'll definitely impede.--Yannismarou 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think you get to decide for the rest of us what's "acceptable" and what isn't. This is a commons, and we all get to decide that together. The previous edit was in fact featured, which is why it came to my attention. As soon as I read the header, I rolled my eyes, because I knew some feminist was trying to invent some feminist heroine (for a fair critique of this, see Xin Liu Gale). For example, compare the way the comparison to Thargelia was worded. It sounded as if Plutarch was saying they were both "renowned," and "educated." But in the context of that passage, it's clear that Plutarch is actually saying that they were both whores, and that they both weakened Greece through seduction and treachery. Is this because Plutarch was a sexist pig? That's a knee-jerk reaction. If you look at the Lives in more detail, again focusing on the larger context, it's clear that the "fall of Greece" is a recurring theme in his work, and that many men as well as women fall under the same cloud of reproach. So that was a perfect example of the non-neutral point of view I tried to correct. Please don't revert that. I think anyone can see that the previous version was extremely misleading, and portrayed the feminist bias I was complaining about. Peace, Ocanter 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can easily prove your blatant POV based on the (reverted fortunately) edits of yours in the first paragraph of the lead. The current NPOV wording is this:

• "Aspasia' .. was a renowned woman of ancient Greece who was famous for her romantic involvement with the Athenian statesman Pericles."

Now, your POV personal preference led to these changes:

• You changed "romantic" to "sexual". But who gave you the right to limit the Pericles-Aspasia relation to just the "sexual" element?! They lived officialy together as a couple (officially married or not nobody can tell with certainty), having a son who was later "legalised". What is then your problem with "romantic". What do you want to prove with this change? That Aspasia was a paid whore of Pericles?
• You changed "famous" with "infamous". Again, I do not understand why you insist in labeling the Pericles-Aspasia relation with the POV "infamous". Yes, she was criticized by the comic playwrights, but the fact that the Athenian state legalised her son with Pericles, the fact that Plutarch tells about her that she "was held in high favour by Pericles because of her rare political wisdom" does not matter for you ?! It does not ever matter Plutarch's claim that "Socrates sometimes came to see her with his disciples, and his intimate friends brought their wives to her to hear her discourse". Is that how her relation was infamous in the Athenian society?!!! Is that how Plutarch is critical towards the "whore" Aspasia?!! By lauding her for "her rare political wisdom'?! I'm afraid you have to read better Plutarch! And why then Aeschines Socraticus presents this "whore" in his works as a female philosopher? Or would you like to delete all these sections and info from the article,in order to back your obbviously NPOV position that Aspasia was an "infamous whore" who seduced poor Pericles and caused the decline of Athens! Oh, come on now!--Yannismarou 18:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I attempted to delete "sexual," but you got an admin to block it. It should just be "her involvment," if we are striving for a NPOV, because it is not attested until very late that she had a sexual or romantic involvment with Pericles. Compromise here would be appropriate. You say it was "romantic." Well, that may be saying a little too much. It conjures images of Pericles and Aspasia taking long walks on the beach at Pylos. "Sexual" I thought was too blunt, so I tried to revert it, but apparently your friendship with Aldux trumped my careful NPOV criticisms.

On the issue of famous/renowned/infamous, we have the same problem. "Renowned" is certainly too favorable, and is certainly not historically correct. It implies that she was viewed favorably overall. The tradition that she was liked at all again comes very late (Plutarch, Athenaeus), whereas the tradition that she was infamous for prostituting indigenous Athenian women, along with herself, and pussy-whipping Pericles is actually contemporary with those events (Aristophanes). Again, if you read Gale's critique, I think you'll see that the POV you are advocating falls into the trap of relying on the same faulty historical methods it attempts to criticize. You won't believe Plutarch when he says she was a whore and a traitor, but you believe him when he says she was an orator. This is not NPOV. Perhaps "infamous" is also biased. "Famous" I would be OK with, but here it is wrong, because it implies that we can know that she had a romantic relationship with Pericles. Why don't we simply report the idea that she was involved with Pericles the same way we report that she was a whore? We should simply say "ancient writers reported" that she was good at speaking, etc., if that is the tack we are going to take on the prostitution issue. In fact the tradition that she said anything in public is even weaker than the tradition that she was a whore. Plato's comments aren't favorable, either. He was also concerned with defaming Pericles, and he was implying that Pericles was a poor ruler, in that he went to school to a female (as you yourself pointed out in August, above!). The ancient source most favorable to Pericles doesn't mention Aspasia at all. Probably because it was a politically unpopular issue, or more likely, she didn't have any influence on politics. That is NPOV.

By the way, I regret that I have to accuse Aldux of taking sides in this content dispute. It was I who made the initial edits, gradually and carefully, and it was Yannismarou who reverted them without any discussion, except his promise to start an edit war (see his first comment, above). I spent a lot of time trying to straighten out the POV, and all Yanni did was revert. It was he who should have been blocked for multiple reverts. I actually added new content, and my criticism is completely valid: There are no ancient sources supporting the POV of this article. All we have is a muffled acknowledgment of the primary sources, then a bunch of modern feminists trying to explain it all away. That is not a NPOV. We have even ignored the majority of modern scholars who don't believe the feminist myth-making. I asked for a primary source, and I got none. That is the bottom line. Ocanter 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

From http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place. Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks.

I criticised the lack of NPOV and made gradual edits. Yannismarou just reverted. So why did Aldux block me instead of him? It's hard for me not to believe that he is taking sides in the content dispute. Ocanter 19:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Watch what you say! I got no sysop to revert your edits! Do you imply with this comment that there was a conspiracy against you? If yes, you should take it back, because it is a personal offence against me and a very serious accusation. During this one year in Wikipedia, I did not conspire against anybody, and I don't allow anybody to imply something like that. And I do not have to call for an administrator, because I am an administrator myself. Please watch your comments, and do not insult people who have dedicated hundrends od hours of work in this project.

Unfortunately, your attitude proved that you had no intention for compromise. You blatantly insisted on promoting your POV. It is now that you remembered to make proposals about these particular issues I raised? I can understand, of course, because you are new in Wikipedia, and you don't obviously know how it works. But with the help of all of us, you will have the chance to improve your editing skills, and to understand that there are some rules we all have to respect here. For isntance, we cannot vehemently force our POV in a FA article, direspecting all those who have read, reviewes the article, and have found it worthy of being one of the best of the Wikipedia community. I'm sure that after some more time and experience, you will learn that we first discuss major changes, we make concrete propositions, we discuss them, and then we decide whether these changes should be implemented or not.

Another problem I found out here is that other things you read, and other things you understand. Where did I say that I believe Plutarch, "when he says she was an orator". And where does Plutarch say that she was an orator?! He says that she "was held in high favour by Pericles because of her rare political wisdom". How did you invent this stuff that I believe that she was an orator?!!! Is this a joke?!!!! I suppose you can understand the difference between a "person with rare political wisdom" and an "orator". And, for your information, it is not Plutarch but Plato in Menexenus who first said that Aspasia was a teacher of oration (probably ironically). And who tells you that I take for granted Plutarch's asserticn?! I just present it, and try to be NPOV; you take for granted that she was a "whore" and a "traitor", and dismiss whatever you do not like, Please, read WP:POV, and be more careful: it is not nice to accuse other people, and to put into their mouth things they never supported. This is not constructive, and it is not good for you.--Yannismarou 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And nobody blocked you (once again you interpret facts in you own way). You were just warned that you were about to violate 3R rule, which was true. Wasn't it? Once again, please, be a bit more accurate.--Yannismarou 19:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Renowned"

Per Merriam-Webster Dictionary "renowned" means "known far and wide". I strive to understand where is the POV here, but I fail to achieve that. "Renowned" is obviously NPOV and neutral and it stays. OK for the removal of "romantic".--Yannismarou 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I made it "widely know" so as to avoid nonsensic conflicts here.--Yannismarou 20:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you don't really understand how Wikipedia works yourself. I have been working on WP for years, and to be honest, I have never lost a content dispute. This is because I always strive for neutrality and always resort to actual sources, whereas most users are too lazy. This is a perfect example. I asked you for a single ancient source that supported your feminist POV, especially the view that she was not involved in prostitution. I'm still waiting. And until you provide one, everyone is going to see that you are the one trying to ram a non-neutral POV. So eventually, the POV of this article will become neutral.

I'm not sure what was happening with the block, if there was one. If you did not request one, I apologize for making that assumption. I attempted to add new material (not a revert), and your old edit loaded, with the warning you mentioned. I saw that Aldux was an admin, and I assumed that he had blocked me. Now my last edit has gone through, I realize I may have experienced simultaneously the warning and the problem posting new changes, whatever it was. If in fact there was no administrative action on the part of Aldux, I apologize for that accusation. If there was, I stand by my complaint that it was I who added new material and worked toward NPOV, while Yannismarou merely reverted.

If Aspasia had "rare political wisdom," but never spoke in public, nobody would have known about it. That's how Greek politics worked. It's how philosophy worked too, in those days. You didn't just right books in those days. You had to present your ideas in public. So your belief that she had rare political wisdom entails a belief that she was an orator.

I attempted to open this dialogue from the very beginning. You simply reverted. It was you who should have brought up these points individually. I didn't just star to make proposals. My first talk post was a big proposal to reform the non-neutral POV. I got no response, so I started working on the article. Honestly, it makes me shake my head to see all the praise for this piece of merdus. This is one of the worst articles I've ever seen. Any beginner coming to this article will be completely mislead. He or she will think that it is beyond question that Aspasia was an important figure in Athenian politics, and a gifted orator, but that the tradition (actually much earlier) that she was a prostitute was just an invention of a bunch of sexist men. That's about the furthest thing from a neutral point of view I can imagine. And they will learn that she was "renowned." Cleobis and Biton were renowned. Sappho was renowned. Aspasia was the opposite of renowned. Even Plutarch makes this clear. Ocanter 20:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Webster's isn't the greatest dictionary, not that you need a dictionary to understand that "renowned" has an exceptionally positive ring to it. American Heritage is a little better:

renown. n.

1. The quality of being widely honored and acclaimed; fame.

Ocanter 20:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks a lot for your advice, and the dictionary you propose to me. It will definitely be very useful for a non-native English speaker like me. I really wonder right now how did I manage to bring 5 articles to FA status, and contribute to 3 more without this dictionary?! Anyway, from now on, I'll definitely be a proper editor.

I'm also more than happy that you start to realize the difference between a "warning" and a "block". Obviously, the fact that Wikipedia was locked for maintainance while you were promoting your blatant POV caused great problems to you. I'm sure that the Wikipedia team that maintains its base will apologize for this inconvience.

I also thank you for explaining me the role of a person with "a huge political influence". The fact that such a person could act as a political advisor is obviously out of question here. But you know something else: I still believe that Plutarch speaks with admiration for Aspasia in this sentence. I don't know why, but this is my impression.

Finally, since you are such a valuable contributor of Wikipedia, maybe its time to create a userpage to know you better and to honor you with barnstars for your great efforts.--Yannismarou 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the DB lock, and there was no edit conflict; it just didn't take the edits. But it could be a strange browser error; I'm not sure. I understand that the warning itself was not a block, but the coincidence of the error and the warning made me think there was a block. Again, I apologize if there was no administrative action by either you or Aldux.

I hope you'll agree to the new header. I really think it's more neutral. Ocanter 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Plutarch always has a little bit of admiration for everybody. I think that's what I like best about him. Ocanter 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I donot. First of all, why one paragraph? Check WP:LEAD for how a lead of a FA and of an article of this length should be. Aspasia was not famous just for her involvement with Pericles; she was "widely known" and a main person in philosophical dialogues. What does chronological order mean? There is no chronological order in the lead, and there shouldn't necessarily be. And I'll check if the picture is from a bust or a herm, and I'll correct the caption accordingly.--Yannismarou 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia Romana it is a herm. Do you have any source supporting that it is a bust?--Yannismarou 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Now what was that? I spent an hour coming up with a NPOV for the header, and you just reverted without any discussion, except your comment that "widely known stays, etc." I've asked for a third opinion, and I will restore the work I just did. I ask you to explain why your lead is better. The guidelines don't say it should be more than one paragraph, and anybody can see mine is less redundant, more concise, and more neutral. Ocanter 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see now. You edit first, and discuss later, whereas you insist that I discuss first and run everything by you, then post what you will allow. That isn't going to fly, dude. You're not compromising on anything, and you are opposing some very necessary edits.

A herm is technically a statue of Hermes. Calling that a herm by analogy is a bit of a stretch. True, sometimes the term is used that way. But a herm should technically go down further, below the genitals. Anyway, it is definitely a bust. But if you really want to call it a herm, and you are willing to let go of the feminist POV in the header for now, I will let you call it a herm.

I don't see why you even want to point out that she was famous. If she had not been famous, we would not know about her now. It goes without saying that she was famous. The lead just says the thing she was famous for. The thing she was most famous for (again, infamous is closer to the truth) was her involvement with Pericles. Ocanter 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am now satisfied that anyone will be able to see that my lead is more neutral and more concise. If you can wait for the third party response, please refrain from reverting again until then. If not, you'll just make it even more clear that you are reverting necessary edits. Ocanter 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a bust if you provide evidence that it is a bust. I trust your word, but this is not enough for an encyclopedic article, you know. And no she was not famous only for her relationship with Pericles. She was also famous for featuring in philosophical dialogues as a central figure. In your version of the lead you were telling she was mentioned in Plato and Aristophanes. But this is not accurate. She was also mentioned in other philosophical dialogues; in the original version of the lead, I was saying that she was mentioned by Plato and other philosophers. This is basic, and it is something that you did not mention. As far as the paragraphs are concerned: you say that it has to be one paragraph; well, I disagree and I say that it has to be two paragraphs, and that it is wrong to destroy a FA lead. Why you are right and I am wrong? Now, goodnight for tonight; I'm sure we'll have the chance to continue our constructive dialogue tomorrow. Cheers!--Yannismarou 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

section break

Without agreeing with much of what Ocanter says above, I do think the intro is a bit strange. Aspasia is usually described in classical scholarship as Pericles' mistress or as a hetaira, e.g. "Aspasia, Milesian-born mistress of *Percles (1) from c.445 BC when he divorced his wife." (Oxford Classical Dictionary, s.v. "Aspasia"). Or "The most famous woman in classical Athens, the only one who rates an entry in the Oxford Classical Dictionary and could be the subject of a full-length biography, is the hetaira Aspasia." (Sarah B. Pomeroy, review of Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus and Her Biographical Tradition, American Journal of Philology 117 (1996) p. 648. The phrasing "was famous for her involvement with the Athenian statesman Pericles" isn't good, in my opinion; "involvement" is non-specific, and not helpful for the reader--it could mean she was a friend, a political ally, a girlfriend, who knows?

Further, I have to agree that "widely known woman of ancient Greece who was famous" is awkward because it repeats the concept of "famous". Aspasia may well be "widely known" but the main reason she is famous is because she was Pericles' mistress. Her appearances in Attic comedy, the Menexenus, and Plutarch all depend on her connection with Pericles.

By the way, Ocanter, if you're urging people to read something, it would be nice to provide a citation. Is the Gale article you're talking about Gale, “Historical Studies and Postmodernism: Rereading Aspasia of Miletus.” College English. 62:3 (Jan. 2000): 361-86? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what is my problem now Akhilleus. Ocanter's version includes these two choppy phrases "Very little is known about the details of her life. She spent most of her life in Athens.". This is very ugly for a FA article. Can you propose anything in order to improve the bad prose here (since Ocanter insists that much to have a lead of his).--Yannismarou 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You can ax them if you want. I only left them in so we could retain more of Yannismarou's language. Ocanter 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks like the right Gale article. I have it on my desk at work, and I was planning to give the citation when I return to work Monday. Sorry if that caused confusion. Ocanter 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

lead settled, moving on

I asked for sources under "origins," changed "regarded as false" to more neutral POV wording. It is simply not proper to revert an edit like this. We have to have verifiable information and NPOV. Ocanter 22:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Added some minor changes under "Life in Athens" and "personal attacks" (now "public censure", more neutral--"personal attacks" implied they were false). This is a good place to pause and allow some users to discuss this. I really don't think it's right to just let Y revert all my edits. My edits were fair, and more neutral. I think anybody will be able to see that, anybody but Yannismarou. I will pause for comments, then return to making more. There is really no way Y can prevent a legitimate attempt to restore a NPOV. Aldux, please don't revert without comments. You reverted my edits without talking at all about the content. You reinserted a great deal of material that was clearly less neutral. Please try to merge those changes you think are favorable back into the article, instead of putting all Y's feminism back in. Ocanter 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, now just for the record, Aldux has joined Yannismarou in completely disregarding WP policy. From the same page I quoted above:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question.

Yet we haven't heard a peep from Aldux. Just keeps reverting, and threatening to use his admin power now to halt development of the article. I posted citation requests for three unverified facts, and he reverted those. What could be more detrimental to critical review than to revert a request for citation and threaten to ban someone if he asks again for a citation? This is clearly admin abuse, so I would feel confident adding the citation tag again and reporting Yanni for 3RR and Aldux for admin abuse (and 3RR, if he reverts one more time), but I won't sink to that level. I'm confident this won't stand. There's no way some admin without anything to say on the topic can just halt development. I'll say it again, this article stinks. Now that I see that admin abuse has a firm hold here, I can see why. I ask for a source, and I get no response. But I get threats from an admin if I try to ask for a citation? Ocanter 04:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ocanter, I agree it would be nice if Aldux joined the discussion, but your tone is more combative than necessary, and has been since you started contributing to the page. It's pretty easy to conclude that someone who starts out by saying "this article sucks!" isn't interested in being helpful, and people who repeatedly complain about "admin abuse" tend to be dismissed as trolls. So I advise you to be less combative, and then I think you'll find that Yannis and Aldux are quite reasonable people--I've certainly found them so in the past. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ocanter, I'm sorry but you are moving nowhere without previous discussion. And you cannot add {{citation}} tags in a paragraph which is cited. I repeat: first we discuss changes here; then we implement them. After all, I am the main editor of this article, whether you like it or not. I'm happy Akhilleus and Aldux are contributing to this discussion and have commented on your unfortunate intervention. I'm also thinking about asking Robth to have a look at the article. I'll do whatever it takes for protecting the article's quality from your ioffensive. Unfortunately, what stinks is your attitude; not the article. Cheers!--Yannismarou 07:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes you the "main editor"? There is no such official designation. If there were, WP would be like any other encyclopedia. WP is what it is because no single person can control the content. Just because you spent a lot of time working on the article does not mean you get to be the "main editor" and everyone has to get your approval before making an edit. It's clear that both admins who have reverted are only doing so because they don't like the fact that I said the article stinks. There's been no discussion from them on the content (Akhilleus is the only one who's commented, and he mostly agreed with my edits, despite his claim to the contrary). How are we supposed to come to "consensus," when they won't engage in any discussion on the changes I'm proposing? I don't have to tell you your article is great. I don't have to run it by you before I add a citation.

Anyone can see now that the lead is better than it was before. I think even you can see that. So why are you halting development on the rest? There's no reason we can't work together on it. I can weed out your feminism, and you can help me with my "bad prose." I know Aldux and ffm are waiting for me to make some concession and say the article was super-duper, and I'm sorry for calling them ladies. OK, I'm sorry for calling you ladies (assuming you are, in fact, not ladies). The main course of modern interpretation comes from female scholars, however (Jarrat and Glenn especially), so you can take those to be the ladies I was referring to.

The real Akhilleus is supposed to have dressed up like a lady to evade the draft. Ocanter 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

There would seen to be a couple of statements that need sources:

she may have influenced Pericles and Athenian politics

There is no source quoted for this comment.

She is believed to have become the courtesan of Lysicles

There is no source quoted for this comment.

Tony 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Tony

Don't read just the lead. If you read the following sections, you will see that both these assertions are sourced and properly cited.--Yannismarou 19:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't just assume I haven't read the whole article. There is inconsistency between two articles and I see you have contributed to both, though perhaps not for these statements:

Aspasia

She is believed to have become the courtesan of Lysicles,

Lysicles

According to Aeschines Socraticus, Lysicles married Aspasia after Pericles's death.

Both articles quote Aeschines Socraticus (which I have not read), and there should be consistency in an article that is one of Wikipedia’s best.

Also, in learned articles, it is usual to quote the reference/source at the first opportunity. You haven't done this. It is acceptable to have an introduction or summary that does not quote sources, but you have many in this lead paragraph, so you are not being consistent. Tony 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Tony

Read the sections above and my discussion with Pmanderson and Robth, and you'll see this article is correct. it is not proved that Aspasia married Lysicles. So, there is no inconsistency! Now, we don't link in the lead things that are analysed in the main text of the article. This is a basic rule, Tony.--Yannismarou 22:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess "we" (Yannismarou speaks for the whole community now, not just all the editors of this article) also don't cite anything in the main article, unless Yannismarou and two admins say it's OK. If you look through the change logs, you'll see I tried to add a citation to Plutarch to the very first sentence, which claims she was born in Miletus (actually, it should report that Plutarch reported she was born in Miletus). It got immediately reverted by ffm. I thought he was an admin, but now I see from his talk page that he just "wants to be one someday." Ocanter 23:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, "we" as in WP:LEAD. ffm ^yes? 23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus has advised me to be more polite to all of you, and I have decided to be persuaded by him, when it is better to be persuaded. So I will just clarify that I was simply stating that Yannis does not speak for all of WP, and that it is proper style to cite the claim made in that initial sentence of the main body, the very sentence to which I added a citation, and which you reverted. I think even Yannis will see that that's right. I think everyone here can see that's right. So can you explain why you reverted it? And if you see now that the citation was needed, will you please put it back? It would be a good start to improving the article. Thanks, Ocanter 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's start with the very first sentence of the rest of the article:

Aspasia was born in the Ionian Greece colony of Miletus (in the modern province of Aydın, Turkey).

There is no source given for this statement. There is an entire modern book cited at the end of the paragraph, but no ancient source, and not even a page number for the modern source. It also appears to me that the citation is for the statement that the story about her enslavement is apocryphal, not for the statement that she was born in Miletus. Since there is no page number, there's no way to tell, without reading the whole book. This needs a citation. Maybe if Aldux will stop reverting without discussion, we will get a citation from whoever made that claim. Wouldn't that be an improvement to the article?

Never mind, I'll cite good ol' Plutarch. Whatever. At least he's an ancient source. He's not very trustworthy, but I trust him better than somebody's intro philosophy teacher at MSU. Go Sparty.

Aldux, maybe if you would discuss your reversions and threats to use your admin power here, it might give some credibility to everyone's assessment that you are reasonable. I can't apologize for my assessment of the article.

The only thing stopping this article from developing at the present is an administrator's threat to enforce his reversion, made without any discussion or attempt to build on my edits. What exactly constitutes abuse if not that? Is he mad that I called the other contributors feminists? Is he mad that I said the article stinks? It does stink. Nobody is denying that. Yanni only points out that it was "featured," a fact of which he is obviously proud, but which should properly elicit the opposite emotion. Yes, it was featured. Yet it stinks. The reek of feminist revisionism is almost unbearable, although at least now it doesn't hit you until you make it past the lead, to the part Aldux won't let me fix. And Aldux is the only think allowing the stench to sit and fester. If that is not admin abuse, what is? Ocanter 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, Akhilleus, that was the right article by Gale. It's perhaps not a fair cirtique of every modern source here, or even every modern feminist source on Aspasia, but I think it's certainly a fair criticism of the worst of those sources, including Glenn and Jarratt, both of which appear to be major sources for this article. Ocanter 21:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Another reversion with no discussion, I see, this time from ffm. I guess I'm the only editor who discusses changes before reverting someone else's edits. Did you read my edit at all, ffm? It was not a revert. It was a proper citation, and you reverted it. Yannismarou, Aldux, and ffm have all broken Wikipedia policy now. I added a citation. I did it after posting a long comment about the need for a citation to an unverified claim. To revert that is simply contrary to WP goals. I admit I'm not the nicest guy on WP, but I'm doing work that needs to be done. We needed a source for that claim, and now a couple admins are just trying to keep me from doing even that. Do I have to kiss up to every WP admin before I can add a citation? It's clear there's no intent here to come to "consensus" on the content--do we really need "consensus" to add a citation? There is simple admin abuse in that two admins are trying to prevent a citation from being made. There was an uncited (or ambiguously cited, further down) claim. I added a citation. Then the article is better. Then ffm reverted without discussion. Why? Answer that honestly, ffm. Why did you revert? Ocanter 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

chirp . . . chirp . . . chirp . . . Ocanter 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What discussion?

Yannis, Aldux, and ffm have insisted I discuss any changes I should like to make here before making them, and Aldux has threatened to use his admin power to block me from editing the article. Yet none of them has addressed any of the issues I've raised. Let's stick to the simplest issue. The first statement in the main body needs a citation. I think you can all see that. You've insisted that I clear all my changes by Yannis, the "main editor," and you've claimed that you can prevent me from making these changes unless Yannis approves them. You've all insisted that I discuss any changes here. Yet you have not engaged in the discussion I began yesterday on this topic. That statement needs a citation. I made a citation, and ffm reverted it immediately, without discussion. If you are not willing to discuss anything, how can you insist I "discuss changes" here? With whom shall I discuss them? Akhilleus is the only one who is discussing anything. You can't insist I "discuss" something, and then remain mute, simply reverting and making no attempt at discussion, and threatening to use admin power to win an edit war. Ocanter 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

When did I "insisted I discuss any changes"? I do not ever remember doing any such thing. ffm ^yes? 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, when you reverted my citation, you warned me that I was participating in an edit war, and that I could be blocked from editing (though not by you, apparently). According to WP policy already cited here, the preferred alternative to edit warring is to discuss changes on the Talk page. So I assumed you were implying, as Aldux and Yannismarou stated explicitly, that I should discuss any change, however simple, to Yannismarous "FA" edit on the talk page and reach concensus here before making an edit. If you were not suggesting that, then what were you suggesting? That I should just leave it to Yannis to determine what belongs in the article, and not bother trying to add any changes? Ocanter 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a citation for that in the lead. The place would be "Origin and early years". I don't think Plutarch is the first to say she was from Miletus, so you would want to mention whichever ancient author is the first to give us this fact. I don't really think citing this is urgent, though, as nearly every secondary source on Aspasia mentions she was from Miletus--thus her city of birth is a matter of common knowledge. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the statement to which I was referring, the first statement under "Origin and early years." I think you may be correct that Plutarch was not the first, which is why I tried to put a fact tag on the statement. When that was reverted, I put in the citation to Plutarch that someone added further down. I was hoping the person who made the claim would provide a better citation. Something to the effect of:

According to Plato (citation) and Xenophon (citation), Aspasia was born in Miletus. Plutarch maintained that this was the majority opinion in his day (citation), and modern scholarship supports this view (citation).

It is extremely important to know the ancient source for this particular claim, if we are going to address the question of her involvement in the Samian war. If it starts only as late as Plutarch, that says something in support of the theory that "imagined slanders became real lawsuits." Ocanter 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How about the three people currently waging the edit war against me? Do you care to address this issue, or are you just going to rely on admin authority to prevent me from making the necessary citation?

From http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution#Wikipedia_does_not_publish_original_research_or_original_thought :

Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately.

And

Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source.

There is currently no attribution for this statement, "Aspasia was born in the Ionian Greece colony of Miletus (in the modern province of Aydın, Turkey)."

Ocanter 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying my best to discuss changes, follow WP guidelines

Looking back over the above discussion, I realize that my initial language, though blunt, was nowhere near as combative as that of Yannismarou. I also see that my initial violation of 3RR was not as severe or as early as Yannismarou's. I also see that although I posted my ideas for discussion every time before I made any edits, Aldux simply reverted without discussion, and in fact he has yet to comment on any of the content at all, except to threaten to ban me in the change logs. ffm has also not said anything about the actual content. Akhilleus' advice is generally good, and I am trying to follow it, but I cannot see that I should have to discuss it for 48 hours and obtain Yannis' permission before adding a citation to an unsourced fact.

I also see that if you look at the change logs, there was some real progress made during the time Yannis and I were working on the article, whereas progress halted as soon as Aldux threatened to ban me. In fact, the new lead, which I think everyone can see is more concise and more neutral, is due not only to my attempts at obtaining a NPOV, but also to Yannis' attempts at making it more neutral still. I believe that is how wikipedia is supposed to work.

I do not see that Aldux is helping anything by reverting my work without comment and threatening to block me. If he will step out of the way, I think progress can continue. I think Yannis' edits of my edits were generally better and more neutral than what we started with. That is the only way progress is going to happen here. I am not getting any discussion out of you guys on the content. I cannot wait 48 hours for you guys to reach "concensus" on whether we should add a citation to an unsourced claim. WP guidelines require a citation. I don't need Yannis' permission to add one.

I do not say this to start another conflict but to avoid one: tomorrow I will begin again, making careful, precise edits, introducing the material I have already attempted to discuss here on the talk page. If I do not get any discussion on the content issues I raised (48 hours ago), I am going to begin work again by introducing the necessary citations for Aspasia's birthplace, under "Origin." If I am unable to add a necessary citation for an unsourced fact, I will have to seek help through mediation.

Respectfully, Ocanter 22:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really a great starting place. Aspasia's Milesian origin doesn't need a citation--as I said, it's a matter of common knowledge. If you want to tell us the first ancient source to mention her city of birth, great--but it doesn't look like you've tracked down that fact yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Links from Citations to References

I'm thinking of putting links from the Citations to the primary and secondary sources, as at Che Guevara and as described/discussed here. Comments? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Same re as in Alcibiades' talk page.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

428 B.C.

I am not sure I understand this statement:

"Aspasia would have to have been quite young, if she were able to bear a child to Lysicles c. 428 BC."

If Aspasia is born c. 470, she is 42 in 428 B.C.Cdg1072 (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This is still in the article, three years later. Presumably it means that Aspasia must have been quite young when she bore Pericles the Younger (before 440 BC) if she were still able to bear children in 428. However, going by the article's dating (born c.470, gave birth to Pericles by 440), she might have been as old as 30, which wouldn't be a particularly young age for a woman to be bearing children today, let alone in an era where citizen women married around the age of 14. (On the other hand, giving birth at the age of 42 does strike me as being a notably old age for an Athenian woman to be giving birth...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aspasia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120310105601/http://facstaff.unca.edu/drohner/awomlinks/artherktrach1.htm to http://facstaff.unca.edu/drohner/awomlinks/artherktrach1.htm#_ednref17

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aspasia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201015330/http://home.vicnet.net.au/~hwaa/artemis4.html to http://home.vicnet.net.au/~hwaa/artemis4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)