Talk:War against Nabis

GA review

I'm not sure how relevant this is, as it's already A-class, a judgement I largely agree with. However, there a

• In the lead, the paragraph beginning "Nabis, the tyrant of Sparta, had signed a treaty with Rome in 205 BC." is rather choppy; the paragraph after it opens with a monster of a sentence, and so on. As the part of the article that will be seen first, it could stand to be a little better. It's by no means awful, though, but it'd be a good start towards the likely FA objections.

• Comma use is very poor. A lot of necessary commas are missing, and in many cases where a comma is there it's set in a place where you could either have a comma there and at another place in the sentence or neither comma at all, but not just one of the two. For instance, All of the Greek leaders except Aristaenos, thought that they should attack the city, as capturing it was their purpose in going to war. - you can set off "except Aristaenos" with commas either side or leave out both commas, but can't just have the one. I'll put this on my watch list and lend a hand later.

• The Prelude section could be expanded a bit, or the relevant section in the lead shortened: There's very little new information in it, so it seems repititious.

• In short, the whole thing rather needs a couple more copyedits. Factually, it's fine and strong, but the language is poor. It's ... borderline GA, but as it's currently A-class and, I presume, you want it to reach FA, I'm putting it On Hold, to try and help out with copyediting. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been nine days, but not much copyediting seems to of occured, should this be failed or what? Homestarmy 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 14, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: No

2. Factually accurate?: Range of references is too poor.

3. Broad in coverage?: No. Needs more context for users unfamilliar with the war, period and combatants.

4. Neutral point of view?: No. "Nabis, the tyrant of Sparta, gained the Spartan throne in 207 BC after he disposed the rightful king." for example is biased.

5. Article stability? Yes - somewhat

6. Images?: 2 maps are appropriately tagged, but given the topic, needs more images of battlefields, weaponary, notable figures etc.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

This article fails 1. a), b), c), d), 2. a), 3. a), & 4. a), of WP:WIAGA.

For example, per WP:LEAD, the introduction is way too lengthy. (See World War II for a better approach).

Statements such as "That city held out for a while", and "Nabis therefore betrayed his alliance" are not phrased with an encyclopedic frame of language, and need re-phrasing.

The range of references is way too low. Consider using other sources for a more balanced perpective.

Other sections are too lengthy as one large section, and need sub-sections.

Consider visiting Wikipedia:Peer review for more ideas and in-depth/high quality feedback on this article. Hope that helps, Jhamez84 15:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1.I agree that there are some prose problems, but again this is not FAC.--Yannismarou 19:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

2.This range of references is usually OK for FAC and it is not for GAC! I'm surprised!!--Yannismarou 19:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

3.You should be more specific, and postpone your final decision, until the editor addresses these concerns. You should say that these and these things need expansion, and then give a week to the editor to implement these proposals.--Yannismarou 19:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

4.No it is not. There is no bias here. Nabis was a tyrant (have in mind that the word "tyrant" in ancient Greece was not used as it is used today), and he did dispose the rightful king. Where is the bias? The article just narrates the events.--Yannismarou 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

6.Given the topic? Have you searched to find any picture of this period? If you had done, you would know that it is a touuuuuph task!--Yannismarou 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not too long. Articles with longer leads have become FAs. Check the lead of the Third Servile War.--Yannismarou 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "betrayed" is not POV and it is encyclopedic.--Yannismarou 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. This article is just not ready for GA status. Please see comments left at User_Talk:Yannismarou. Jhamez84 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Broad in coverage. This war is really a marginal skirmish between a major power in Italy and some allied towns in Greece against an oversized village filled with mercenaries. There wasn't even much bloodshed, so it is really broadly covered. Ok, you could possibly integrate a short note that the Achean league and Sparta were always grappling each other until one of them called the big brother (Rome/Macedon) and things ended within weeks/months.

Whoever is this crybaby for colorful images needs to come down to earth again. It is a pain to get any image for wikipedia if you can't run wild in a museum with your digital camera. The solution has been to put lots of colorful, but meaningless, images we do have(at least) into articles. In most cases their relation to the subject is only marginally revealed. Usually I get sick of that because this is one of the points that renders our encyclopedia so poor regards. Many articles would look like better quality without this colorful spacefillers, but only a minority cares. At least we have a tool for external images now, just visit this. Wandalstouring 23:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments in my talk page convince me that you have confused FA with GA status, which is unfortunate. And they also convince me that you are not aware of the recommendations in WP:LEAD or of the essence of WP:POV. My purpose is not to re-evaluate your dedcision here, but not to repeat the same wrong criteria in your future reviews--Yannismarou 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We clearly disagree, and so perhaps the best way to take this forwards is to have an impartial third opinion. My reviewership for articles has always been welcomed and I am surprised from the level of passion shown here. I'll withdraw from this topic until changes are made, though I would welcome the changes I've suggested, as I do believe they would help the article regardless of acheiving GA. Jhamez84 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

There is clearly strong opinion about this - which I find surprising. Perhaps I should clarify a little more:

• The main problem with this article is that it does not read correctly in native-English; the prose is not grammatically correct and reads "fuzzily" - particularly to someone unfamiliar with the topic. Given this it fails criteria 1. a) of WP:WIAGA.

• The article does not make clear the exact reasons why this war took place. Was it Nabis who started this war by taking the Spartan throne? - if so, then please make it clearer. If not, then again, simply make this a little clearer.

• The lead is an important section in any article, but this one is not referenced at all with inline citation - a requirement for criteria 2.(b) for GA.

• This article was nominated weeks ago and received suggestions which were not acted upon (see the comments above by two other reviewers). Thus the On-Hold period was terminated as a GA failure.

• Images exist on Wiki-commons relating both to Ancient Rome, Sparta and other such combatants - I did not fail the article because it did not include them, but I was suggesting that they would be useful for users, particularly, children, foreign learners and the impaired. THIS IS MY SUGGESTION only, and not a reason why I failed the article.

I checked the images on wikicommons. If it is acceptable to put images of WWI trench warfare into Operation Anaconda you are welcome to use the content of commons to spice up this article. Wandalstouring 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very much willing to help with any of these issues - just contact me at any time. Whilst I was strict with reviewing this article, there are none-the-less small but outstanding issues which need to be confronted before this article is ready. I trust that helps, Jhamez84 00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that your third point isn't quite correct. The lead is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article, not a section with unique content in its own right; the consensus is that it should not, in general, contain inline citations (as a need for them would imply that it contained material not given—and referenced—in the body of the article). This is why FAs don't usually have citations in the lead section. Kirill Lokshin 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A interesting and fair point, though this does not (directly) form part of (or is not clear enough on) WP:WIAGA. However, it is the lead that contains the most objectionable statements, and thus perhaps should be ammended/reworded more to reflect the referenced material in the main article. Jhamez84 02:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I recieved a message about this discussion, and may I say, the Good Article review page might be a better place to resolve this conflict? (Also, sometimes inline citations in leads are necessary for extremely controversial topics in my experience.)Homestarmy 12:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

sources

(copied from FAC page) T.R.S. Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vol. 1, p. 341 lists the sources for Flamininus' proconsulship in 195 as: SIG 592; Liv. 34.22-41; Plut. Flam. 13.1-3; Justin. 31.3.1; Eutrop. 4.2; Auct. Vir. Ill. 51; Oros. 4. 20.2; Zon. 9.18. I think you have to add at least the Plutarch and SIG (= Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum). The Gruen reference above will be helpful with the context that Raymond Palmer is asking for. Semperf 01:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Syll. 592 is short enough to quote in full (from R.K. Sherk, ed. and trans., Roman and the Greek East to the death of Augustus, Cambridge U.P. 1984, no. 6C) (brackets mark what is supplied by the translator; straight lines are line breaks in the inscription):

Titus, (son) of Titus, Quinctius, consul of the Ro|mans, (is honored by) the People of the Gytheates, their sa|vior.

I hope this helps. Semperf 01:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Social reforms and title of Nabis

Ernst Baltrusch writes in Sparta 3-406-41883-X (a series of scholarly works in German) that Nabis is credited for his social reforms. I couldn't find out what these reforms were, but it seems they were connected to military strength and reducing social unrest(that at this time heavily affected Greece). Furthermore he claims that Nabis officially used the ancient title of Spartan kings and not tyrant on his coins, while in scholarly works he is mentioned with that title. Wandalstouring 12:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (see my talk page)

The idea is that we should mention what Nabis called himself and what others called him, especially since tyrant was a title. Wandalstouring 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

GA hold

Well written: The article needs a thorough copy-edit for spelling and grammar.

Factually accurate and verifiable: Passed

Broad in its coverage: Passed

Has Neutral Point of View: Passed

Stable: Passed

Pictures: Passed

This is a good article in terms of content, but has a lot of spelling mistakes, as well as some grammar mistakes. These need to be sorted out before it can be GA. Druworos 15:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violation in Nabis' reforms, etc.

Try an NPOV approach on Nabis reforms and be more specific on who makes what statement (unreasonably high). Show reforms with more background on the political situation, highlight the rivalry between Argos and Sparta if you explicitly mention Argos rule. Wandalstouring 19:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Megapolis

Megapolis redirects to Megacity and there it talks about big cities with over 10 million inhabitants so what is the Megapolis in this context, especially since you refer to it as the Megapolis. Wandalstouring 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Some useful background information

Plautus#Historical_Context contains some secondary sources on the time and Rome. Wandalstouring 02:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Name of the war in greek

I noticed the article specifies the battle name in greek "Greek:Λακωνικός Πόλεμος", can the word "greek" be wikilinked to the appropriate language? I would do it myself but there appears to be four variants of the Greek language. Thanks. — Tutmosis 18:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is Koine Greek. Wandalstouring 18:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. — Tutmosis 20:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

The article still has some language issues that must be worked out before it can pass GA. Druworos 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Whatever the language issues are, they didn't matter, as in a 5 to 1 decision with not a single person actually voting delist in the articles Good Article review discussion, this is now a Good Article. Review archived here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 13. Homestarmy 23:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

questions about opening section

1. "During the Second Macedonian War Sparta had been granted control over the city of Argos as part of games of power amongst hostile third parties." Who granted Sparta this control? The Romans? Why? Why did they change their mind?

The Macedonians gave it to them and the Romans didn't make them leave when they switched sides.Should we write this more in detail? Wandalstouring 20:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Why include "Greek:Λακωνικός Πόλεμος"? is this the ancient name of the war? or what it's referred to now in modern Greek textbooks? if the lattter should it be included in the English wikipedia? Semperf 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I asked the lead coordinator at WPMILHIST and he said that that it would be no problem to add. And yes it is the war's name in modern Greek. Kyriakos 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A coordinator has nothing to decide on such issues (I'm one of them). Sorry, but I see no reason for the war's name in modern Greek. Koine Greek and Latin would be OK because that's the language of the primary sources. Wandalstouring 20:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

map for the lede

The first map is a great map--but for the wrong date, since it shows the standing of various powers in 200 BC, on the eve of the Second Macedonian War. What we need is one for 195 BC, with Macedonia beaten back. If we can't get one like that, I think a simple line map would do, but one that includes all the places named in the article: Argos, Sparta, Laconia, Gytheum, etc. Semperf 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to find a map showing Greece durin 195 BC however I have had no luck. The closest I have found are 200 BC and 188 BC. From my research on the time period the all the nations were the same during 195 BC as they were at 200 BC except for Macedon which had had Thessaly removed from it and had become independent as well as the Cyclades islands, Euboea and Caria which had been granted to Rhodes. Kyriakos 22:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a running map request, but not yet any reaction.Wandalstouring 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. But it seems to me that what is most important is that there is a map that allows readers to see where the places in the article are. Not everyone knows where Argos is, for example, or where Gytheum is. We need maps in the article that explain that. Semperf 14:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is no requirement for FA and as long as there is no such thing, we can not display it. Wandalstouring 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the FA is besides the point. What we should be doing is trying to create as good an article as possible, and having maps that actually contribute to people's understanding will help create a better article. If worse comes to worst, someone can just take a pre-existing map, download it, and photoshop in the necessary details. Semperf 17:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone doesn't do it. I need a solution. Wandalstouring 17:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well at the moment we're at a bit of a stand-off then. How about this as a compromise: let's move the c. 200 map from the sidebar and into the text in the "prelude" section. (Thus the map appears with the right historical moment in the narrative, in the same way that the 188 map below goes with aftermath section.) For the sidebar we should see if we can find a map of ancient Greece that includes lots of place names, but does not have (e.g.) political divisions. (I still think it's important that a reader be able to see where Argos and Gytheum are--that's the reason maps are important!) Semperf 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. By the way there is an illustrator who will create some images for this article and I have written you a comment about the importance of English in scientific literature. I think this might be shocking for you, but honestly, in all fields of science lots of hot stuff gets never published in English. Wandalstouring 00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That'd be great if you could get a map: it doesn't have to be too complicated. Here's a map that almost (but doesn't quite) work: [1] Semperf 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If we keep it not very complicated, I might ask my personal cartographer. He is a bit stressed by a life outside of wikipedia and an ongoing work on the Battle of Chalons, so it might take several weeks/months, depending on for how much we ask. So what do you suggest should be implemented? some names and locations (which)? borders? troop movements?Wandalstouring 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that place-names is enough. But maybe there is a good enough map somewhere aleady. Is there anyway in which maps are indexed? Semperf 02:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Atlas is the general storage for all wikimaps. However you often find national material that is not on commons and the index isn't that good. Wandalstouring 02:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, got one. Wandalstouring 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

FreeLaconinans

I object the removal of free Laconians. that is the founding of a state. Deleting this declassifies for FA for lack of broad coverage.Wandalstouring 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• What is the source that they became a state now? Holleaux says the Laconian coastal cities were separated from Sparta and given to the Achaean league. Pausanias mentions the "Free Laconians, whom the emperor Augustus freed from the bondage in which they had been to the Lacedaemonians in Sparta", but says nothing about Flamininus. You might check the pages from Gruen, Hellenistic World and Coming of Rome, that I've scanned for Kyriakos (download here), but I'm pretty sure that the union (κοινόν) comes later. Semperf 23:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wandal. I will quote from Greenhalgh and Eliopoulos: "...while his fleet blocka Gythium, freed it from Spartan control and made it the head of a league of free cities...". Kyriakos 23:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Do Greenhalgh and Eliopoulos cite their source? It seems to me that Pausanias is fairly clear about this. Let's check the Gruen and Holleaux. Semperf 23:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Here is what Gruen says (pp. 454-5): "Argos was recovered by the Achaean League and the towns of the Laconian coast placed under its supervision, but Nabis retained his throne…, but the men he exiled would remain so, to be settled in the maritime communities". The sources in n. 100: "…Achaean supervision of the Laconian coastal towns: Livy, 35.113.2, 38.31.2. … The exiles: Livy 34.35.7, 38.30.6". Nothing about a koinon in Gruen. I'll check the Livy, now. Semperf 23:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The union began in 195 BC when Flaminius founded it but it wasn't until 21 BC when Augustus officially recognized it. And they say that the origon of the Union was 195 BC. Kyriakos 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• But who says the union began in 195 BC? Only, Greenhalgh and Eliopoulos? Semperf 00:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Here's a passage from the book: 8,500 Year of Civiliization: Greece: Bewtween Legend and History: "In 195 BC, the coastal cities of the area joined the Koinon of Free laconians, detaching themselves from Sparta."

1. Here is another passage this one is from The Mani by Bob Barrow: "...and made Gythium the main city of a league of free cities to counter-balance Spartan power and influence."

So there are some of my other sources. Kyriakos 00:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, none of those sources strike me as authoritative. Here is what the New Pauly Online (vol. 4, p. 918) says about the Free Laconians:

Eleutherolakones (Ἐλευθερολάκωνες; Eleutherolákōnes). League of Laconian coastal settlements; as former perioikoi settlements, they were placed under the protection of the Achaean Confederacy following the defeat of Nabis by the Romans in 195 BC. After the failure of the Achaean uprising in 146 BC, they were permitted to unite in the koinòn tôn Lakedaimoníōn (κοινὸν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων) (Liv. 35,13,2; 38,31,2) [2. 51]. In 21 BC, Augustus reorganized the league [1. 60], which was thenceforth known as koinòn tôn Eleutherolakṓnōn (Str. 8,366; Paus. 3,21,6f.; IG V 1 1161; 1167; 1243; 1360). Semperf 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And what help does this provide for your claims?Wandalstouring 10:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• First, there is no koinon until after 146 (not 195 as in the article), second they are not called the "Free Spartans" until the time of Augustus. Semperf 14:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, my objection was a bit premature. I concord with you. @Kyrikiakos It often happens that books with less through research contain misquotes, especially if it is about details. Wandalstouring 01:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for the war

saying that the only reason for the war was liberating Argos is close to lying. Rhodos, Pergamon, Macedonia and Rome were happy if someone didn't rule the whole Peloponnese and thus Achea and Sparta were busy there. What bothered all of them were the bases of the Cretan pirates. Mind to implement the difference between reasons and casus belli. For example Alexander the Great's casus belli was revenge for the Persian invasion of Greece(Macedonia had been a Persian ally), nuff about silver, beautiful women and ruling the world. Wandalstouring 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a fair point, I wouldn't mind deleting the term casus belli completely, since it is likely to cause more confusion than clarity in an outside reader. The following clause does call this a pretext, which is closer to the point. Semperf 18:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it because it perfectly reflects the meaning of casus belli as a justification for a war. Some people confuse this today. Perhaps We leave casus belli in the infobox and say that it was justified under the following pretext or the like. Wandalstouring 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll do it now. Semperf 22:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

maps

I've changed the maps as we discussed above. Semperf 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

external images

I like the idea of external images generally, but am not sure that these ones are especially helpful to this article. While there were wars in which the differnce between Roman style of warfare vs. the Macedonian phalanx was important, in this warfare the important struggles seem to have been sieges. Semperf 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I had them just placed to end this endless request of imges of Spartans. As soon as I find some free siege machines I will replace it. Wandalstouring 20:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Name?

Um, could we please stop with the back-and-forth moves? The original move was not so outlandish that it had to be reverted immediately.

For what it's worth, I think Miskin is correct in his assertion that the name "Laconian War" is the (more) commonly used one, at least in English-language historiography; I only found a single paper that uses "Roman-Spartan War". Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a review citing Laconian War and a journal article citing Roman-Spartan. It seems fairly evenly divided, however JSTOR isn't always complete.Thanatosimii 03:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pausanias seems to use "Laconian War" (although I'm not entirely sure if he's talking about the same thing), as does Livy. Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In Greek it is called, Λακωνικός Πόλεμος meaning Laconian War. Kyriakos 03:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Cambridge Ancient History calls it the 'War with Nabis'. My feeling is that the present name is best for wikipedia. Yes, the Romans referred to it as the Spartan war or Laconian War--no surprise, really. Presumably the Spartans called it the Roman war. But we need a name that differentiates this Laconian war for our readership. Roman-Spartan or Roman-Laconian is therefore best. semper fictilis 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Inventing names? This is pretty much the definition of original research. Look, WP:NAME is a policy, meaning non-negotiable, you don't really have a choice on that. "Roman-Spartan" is definitely not the most popular, if at all an existing name for the conflict. Move it back please. Miskin 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, using the parties involved to refer to a war isn't "inventing names"; it's a generic descriptor of the war used in the absence of a more obvious name, not a proper name per se (c.f. "Anglo-French War of X", "Russo-Swedish War of Y", etc.). Kirill Lokshin 04:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Aldux the FA status doesn't lock an article, in fact it's an extra reason to hurry up with the move. The current title gives zero results in google books and scholars, this is far beyond editor consensus. Miskin 04:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Google is not the end-all of scholarly sources; and, in any case, "most popular" is a gross oversimplification of the naming policy (as would, for that matter, be "found on Google"). Kirill Lokshin 04:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME says "article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". I doubt whether your preferred name, Laconian War, is made necessary by that policy either. semper fictilis 04:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The more specific convention here would be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). The question is whether "Laconian War" is a "common name" for this event. Kirill Lokshin 04:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Laconian War" gets 16 results in books, meaning that at least 16 scholars have been using it. 16 > 0, simple maths, rename to "Laconian war". This is how I got my preferred name semper fictilis, I would advise you to do the same. This isn't a very common name even, but for now it's the commonest. Judging by the topic's low popularity this is probably a consensus figure. Miskin 04:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, all the results are to Aristotle, Livy, or Pausanias; there's no modern historians. (Which is not surprising, given how obscure this is; the war doesn't even appear in Phillips & Axelrod's Encyclopedia of Wars, so I suspect the English-language historiography on it is basically non-existent.) Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"What the majority of the english speakers would most easily recognise" does not mean that we should invent names that in our opinion offer the best description. It means that we should be using the most popular existing names. Miskin 04:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• The problem, Miskin, is that of those results, not all are for this war. Aristotle is referring to what we tend to call the Peloponnesian War. semper fictilis 04:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is at least one recorded use of the Roman-Spartan war, so the 16>0 figure isn't quite correct. However, I'm pretty sure that Laconian War is probably better. If this war needs to be differentiated from other laconian wars, make Laconian war a dabpage and put the dates in parentheses behind this page's title. I've seen it frequently done; it appears to be the standard solution. Thanatosimii 04:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All but one or two - true - but notice also that that the translator's name is different. This implies that at least those 10-16 scholars have accepted Artistotle's and Livy's terminology. So it does count as a result. Otherwise we'll be looking at "War with Nabis" or something along those lines like you suggested earlier. In any case the current name is purely invented and has to be renamed. Miskin 04:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it'd be quite legitimate to argue that this war has no generally accepted name in English, and fall back to the purely descriptive title, actually. If all the possible names have extremely minimal usage, NPOV becomes a bigger factor than relative popularity. Kirill Lokshin 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How widely do (Greek?) sources use the term? If it's just a choice between two wars, it may be sufficient to put a dablink ("This article is about the Roman-Spartan war in 195 BC. For the other conflict sometimes called the Laconian War, see Peloponnesian War.") at the top and avoid shuffling pages around. Kirill Lokshin 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If we conclude that the event isn't generally given a name, then the article should be merged elsewhere. In any case we can't afford to stay with original research. Even a poorly supported name like "Lakonian War" or even "Nabis War" would do it. If you ask me both "Spartan-Roman war" and "Laconian war" offer a bad description. This wasn't a war between Rome and Sparta, nor it was more "Laconian" than any of Sparta's previous wars. But this is besides the point. Miskin 05:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to rename temporarily to 'Laconian War' which at least exists in Greco-Roman sources and their english translations. Also the "Roman-Spartan war" name should be completely dropped, it appears to have been a wikipedian's invention. One result isn't enough, even a string like "Spartan-Persian" or any similar random combination will have some results, without meeting any consensus of course. I don't think a dablink is necessary, I've never heard of the Peloponnesian War being called "Laconian War". Miskin 05:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• It gets more complicated. "Laconian war" is not a very good translation of Livy 35:30. Here is the Latin and the translation that we find in google books:

Philopoemen incluso tyranno in urbem insequentes dies prope triginta uastandis agris Laconum absumpsit debilitatisque ac prope fractis tyranni uiribus domum rediit, aequantibus eum gloria rerum Achaeis imperatori Romano et, quod ad Laconum bellum attineret, praeferentibus etiam.

Now that Philopoemen had shut the tyrant up in his city he spent nearly a month in devastating the Lacedaemonian fields, and after thus weakening and almost shattering the tyrant's power he returned home. The Achaeans in view of his brilliant success put him on a par with the Roman general, and considered him as his superior so far as the Laconian war was concerned.

"Laconum bellum" does not mean "Laconian war", but "war with the Laconians" (lit. "of the Laconians"). "Laconian war" would be bellum Laconicum. So, no, I don't think that Laconian war has much in its favour. If you can find some modern sources in English showing that this is the standard way of referring to it, I'm willing to be convinced. Until then, I say leave it as it is. semper fictilis 05:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather clunkier name, but it seems that the more common way of referring to the conflict may simply be as the "War against Nabis". Maybe we could use some variation on that? Kirill Lokshin 07:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As I mentinioned above the Greek name for the war is the Laconian War. I will have a look through my other sources and tell you all my findings. Kyriakos 08:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't find the direct-translation from Latin argument much relevant. After all Imperium Romanorum doesn't translate to 'Roman Empire' either. And the very fact that translators use 'Laconian war', means that it is too an existing connotation in english, whereas 'Spartan-Roman' is not. I'm also in favour of the variant 'War against Nabis'. Miskin 13:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• The more important point is that Livy is not in fact giving the war a title, nor does the translator mean to do so either: he is merely describing a circumstance: contemporaries approved of Philopoemen's successes in the contemporary war. Anyway, that one 18th century translator used the phrase "Laconian war" is not very significant, and the fact that your google search comes up with only a handful of hits, mostly of dubious relevance, suggests that it is not in any way standard. (Do a search for "first Mithridatic War" and you get hundreds of relevant hits.) The "war against Nabis" is worth further consideration, but we do need I think to add "Roman", since there were early Achaean wars against Nabis. In any case, there is no deadline. We can take our time and come to a consensus here that includes those who have worked on the article. semper fictilis 14:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Another note: the Pausanias that the google search includes is Pausanias 1.13.7 and refers to a different war (272 BC). semper fictilis 15:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to interpret Livy would fall under original research. We have to consider the English translations of Livy and Pausanias which use "Laconian War". I'm not insisting that this is the best name, but it is definitely better than the current one. But I don't understand why do you keep on suggesting names that don't exist? We can't use 'Spartan-Roman' because it has but one mention, where it's most likely not given as a name for the conflict. I don't think this is a matter of consensus, the article needs to be temporarily moved to a non-OR title such as "Laconian War". Later it will be decided what name is best to describe it. Miskin 17:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, it should left here until there is consensus, which is also policy. However we reach that consensus, Aristotle's usage is of no help--he was dead for a century and a half before the war that we're trying to name and was talking about anotehr war. So, too, Pausanias, who was not referring to this war, but one that was 80 years before. That won't do. semper fictilis 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that you're a new editor, otherwise wikipedia's policy description is seriously flawed. If "consensus" meant supplanting policies like wp:name then I don't see why would we need to have other policies in the first place. We'd base every decision on wp:consensus. The current name is clearly a violation of a non-negotiable policy and it has to be moved. You may be favourable to original research but I'm not. I'm going to refer to other people to support me on the quick move, otherwise it will never be sorted out. Miskin 17:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact I immediately reverted the move doesn't mean I necessarily find it wrong; but I firmly believe that an article that has passed through FA scrutiny (which means that many saw it, without objecting to the title) should never be renamed without previous discussion. Also that something is or is not OR is a question of consensus, that can't be estabilished alone by a single editor. I should have been less harsh towards you Miskin, and for this I'm sorry and I ask you to forgive me; but I must insist the move was unilateral. After all, this article has been scrutinized by many of the best wikipedia editors on Greek topics. Also, the points made on Pausanias, Aristotle and Livy are serious.--Aldux 18:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Aldux. Generally I don't believe that a consensus is needed when there's a clear violation of wp:name, but to be honest I hadn't noticed the FA status on this article. Miskin 10:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to ask why people are using Arisotle in this discuss. This was was over a hindered years after his death and the Laconian war he was talking about was most probably the Peloponnesian War. As for Pausanias the war of 272 he was talking about is when Phyrrus of Epirus invaded Laconia.

Because he used "Laconian war" for a different conflict. Miskin 10:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Spartan war"

• P. Cartledge, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities (1992) Page 76: "Nabis was to withdraw from all his extra-Laconian possessions (chiefly Argos but also some ... Rome's Spartan war was not yet over…"
• L Saris and John D. Grainger, The Roman War of Antiochos the Great (202) Page 104: "…war on Nabis of Sparta,2 a war which took some months to win. ... as to Antiochos' intentions Flamininus would not have become involved in the Spartan war, ..."
• John D Grainger, The League of the Aitolians (1999) Page 437: "... it was the Spartan war which pinned Achaia to the Roman"
• Livy (trans. William Masfen Roberts): "which had been his starting-point for the Spartan War" and "Quinctius led back his army to Elatia, whence he had set out to the Spartan war" (also in translation of Foster)

semper fictilis 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the Roman-Spartan name is supported. "Spartan war" is closer to "Laconian war" as Sparta and Laconia are often used interchangeably. Are you suggesting "Spartan war"? Miskin 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Roman-Spartan War" is just a shorter, linguistically equivalent form of "War between Rome and Sparta". It's a description, not a name; the support for it is that all the sources agree that this was a war between Rome and Sparta. (In any case, the name is not original research, since at least one scholarly paper does use it; it may not be the most common name, but it's not an original one on our part.)

Beyond that, the possibilities we have so far:

• "Laconian War" - appears to need heavy disambiguation; rarely-used
• "War against Nabis" - more commonly used; may need disambiguation; unusual name form
• "Roman-Spartan War" - rarely used; may avoid disambiguation; somewhat over-simplified

Could we get away with something like "War against Nabis (195 BC)"? Kirill Lokshin 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• One way or the other, I think we need to work "Roman" into the title--there were other Spartan/Laconian wars, after all--against other cities during the Classical period, fairly regularly against the Achaeans in Hellenistic times, all of which was probably called Spartan/Laconian war by someone. Our title has to distinguish this war from them. So "Roman-Spartan War" is acceptable; I would prefer "Roman Spartan War" (no hyphen), and am willing to consider arguments for "Roman Laconian War" or "Roman War against Nabis", or perhaps also "X War (Roman)". But without "Roman" somewhere in the title we will be doing our readers a misservice. semper fictilis 18:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that's a good idea, actually. It's not a uniquely Roman war, per se—there are other Greek powers involved against Nabis—so I'd actually avoid putting it into the title if it's not necessary to disambiguate. (We don't put the participants into the title for other similarly-named wars, after all; disambiguating by date is sufficient. It's not like the participants aren't immediately obvious to someone reading the first few sentences.) Kirill Lokshin 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that a date can provide a similar disambiguation-mechanism. Without "Roman", however, I incline towards "War against Nabis". semper fictilis 19:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill, Rome had hardly the role of a protagonist in the war - it's really POV-pushing pretend the opposite. Miskin 10:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

What does everyone think about a straw poll to decide the name. We can have the preposed names and everyonr votes for which one they want and give a reason why/ What do you all think? Kyriakos 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I think the debate is failing to solve this at present, I think we need to see if a consensus can be reached or at least where everyone stands:

Spartan War

• vote here

Laconian War

• vote here
• support - popular among ancient scholars and their translators Miskin 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• support that their should be a reference to this name in the article. But I do not agree that it should be the main name of the article. Kyriakos 05:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

War against Nabis

• Support because as pointed out it is not a purely Roman and Spartan affair and referring to it purely as "Spartan War" or similar only makes logical sense if you are a Roman (ie you know Rome is the other adversary) - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Second choice (I prefer "Roman" despite Rome's allies--the title needs to help passers-by disambiguate.)
• Support; appears to be the most common variant in English, and doesn't have any of the attached baggage of the other options. Kirill Lokshin 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• support - although never explicitely coined as a name, it is a popular description Miskin
• Support. Seems to be the most widely used name. Kyriakos 05:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• !vote here

Roman-Spartan War

• Comment. No hyphen and lower-case "war" (since this is not the "name" of the war, like "First Punic War", but a description of what's in the article. semper fictilis 22:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• vote here

Roman Laconian War

• vote here

Roman War against Nabis

• Support as my first choice as the most likely to cause confusion in someone without knowledge of ancient history. (I think "war" should not be capitalized) semper fictilis 22:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• !vote here

---

In any case there seems to be a clear consensus, how come the move hasn't been performed yet? Miskin 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Philopoemen

Is there only one person in the article with a name close to Philopoemen? There are three names in the article as Philopoemen, Philopoemon, and Philiopoemon, and I don't want to change them all to the working wikilink name of Philopoemen, if they somehow refer to different people or groups. Been there, done that. Michael Devore 04:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Consequent?"

"All consequent Spartan attempts to recover the losses..." should say "subsequent". "Consequent" implies a more direct cause-and-effect. I'd edit it myself but I'm reluctant to jump into an FA without an edit history on the page. (user CouldOughta, not logged in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.203.48 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Title

I can see this has been the topic of discussion in the past, but the conclusion of those discussions and the title that now stares out at everyone on today's main page both seem a little odd. As acknowledged, "War against Nabis" is not a formal title found anywhere in reliable sources for this conflict – yet it is not only used as the title but is capitalised in text as if it were a proper name (and the article for Nabis himself refers to the "eponymous" war, again as if this was a formal name or title for it). Obviously, without a common or clear formal name for this war, we are left with working out a more descriptive title; but in that case we should have something more generally and genuinely descriptive, such as "Roman-Spartan War" (which does generate a few search results), which, per WP:TITLE, will be broadly clear to and understandable by the average informed reader. Not only is the current title at first glance and in itself utterly unclear (who or what is Nabis?) but the lead doesn't help much as it doesn't get round to identifying Nabis until the last paragraph. The only justification for it seems to be that the phrase "war against Nabis" crops up in quite a few sources, but this is only in the context of very general prose text such as "the Romans were debating whether to wage war against Nabis", "in their war against Nabis" etc etc. N-HH talk/edits 11:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

External images links are dead

The two external images linked in the Preparations section lead to dead links. I don't know enough about the subject to recommend replacement images, but equivalent images, or the same images on alternate sites, should be linked. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War against Nabis. 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/20071030002124/http://library.thinkquest.org/04apr/00281/romans/03.html to http://library.thinkquest.org/04apr/00281/romans/03.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources are not good enough for the current FA standards

This article is heavily sourced to the ancient sources of (especially) Livy and Polybius and Smith's very dated 19th-century source. The reliance on these ancient and dated sources runs afoul of the quality sourcing requirements of the modern FA criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)