Talk:Xenophon

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Polity of the Lacedaemonians which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I removed a large section on the relationship between Medes and Persians in the Cyropedia. The section was originally added (in essentially the same form as now) in this edit by a user who was explicitly arguing for the reliability of the Cyropaedia as historical beyond what most scholars would advocate; they simultaneously added a similar, much longer section to the Cyropaedia article, which was soon removed at that article with an edit note describing it as "almost entirely ORIGINAL RESEARCH." It's also mentioned on the talk page of that article, with a note that the sources (which are the same as cited in the section here) do not support what is actually said, (Olmstead is specifically singled out there, and is one of the sources used in the exact same way in this article).

It's worth noting that the current version of that section (in addition to being largely original research/synthesis) explicitly refers readers to the now deleted section of the Cyropaedia article (that's actually how I came across the above history, by going to that article from here and seeing it didn't have that section anymore and seeing on its talk page what happened to it). Even if the material could be reworked in some form (and I'd want it based on sources that specifically talk about Xenophon's portrayal of the Medes and the Persians' relationship, not just sources that talk about the Medes in general), that explicit "see there" sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just a Rube (talk • contribs) 11:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Just a Rube (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Valid sounding points, but I think you need to handle this concern in a more refined way. Thank you for posting here after the edit/revert. My concern when I reverted was that a lot of the material deleted was uncontroversial and very clearly sourced, even including direct quotations. There is clearly a red flag any such massive deletion is going to concern, that we are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Your problem is common and normal on Wikipedia, and the solution is to go through the section step by step, making edits to specific issues. Concerning the biggest concern you seem to have, of "due balance", there are also common ways to get around concerns: (1) you can, if necessary, attribute controversial opinions to specific authors or groups of authors, rather than leaving it in "Wikipedia voice" which should be reserved for uncontroversial opinions that the whole field agrees with; (2) when you do that, remember to ALSO post sources for the other side of the controversy, in order to prove there really is controversy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is going to involve a wall of text as I examine the section in detail, but the TL/DR is: the whole thing is undue, and none of it should be included, as it misrepresents its alleged sources in order to push a fringe claim that mainstream historians have been unfairly critical of the historical accuracy of the Cyropaedia, and that in reality Cyrus never conquered the Medes.

First off, this section is located within the part of this article which discusses Xenophon's political philosophy, and how it is reflected in his various works. The role of the Medes in Cyrus's empire is maybe relevant to that, but this section doesn't discuss it, being really a thinly veiled excuse to attack Herodotus's credibility in favor of Xenophon's.

With that said, let's look at the text as a whole (which I've copied and pasted from the current version of the main article)

Xenophon wrote the Cyropaedia to outline his political and moral philosophy. He did this by endowing a fictional version of the boyhood of Cyrus the Great, founder of the first Persian Empire, with the qualities of what Xenophon considered the ideal ruler. Historians have asked whether Xenophon's portrait of Cyrus was accurate or if Xenophon imbued Cyrus with events from Xenophon's own life. The consensus is that Cyrus’s career is best outlined in the Histories of Herodotus. But Steven Hirsch writes, "Yet there are occasions when it can be confirmed from Oriental evidence that Xenophon is correct where Herodotus is wrong or lacks information. A case in point involves the ancestry of Cyrus."[19]

This is the only part that I considered maybe keeping, and the main reasons I didn't were that it's dubiously relevant to the question of Xenophon's political philosophy, and not at all relevant to the question of the role of the Medes in Cyrus's empire (which this section is supposed to be about). The other objection is that I don't have access to the Hirsch source, and, as we shall see, every other source in this section is misrepresented, which (since this section was essentially written as a block 5 years ago and left more or less untouched since) makes me hesitant to leave this one here simply because I can't check it. That said, the basic idea, that Xenophon was writing the Cyropaedia as a political allegory, that Herodotus is generally more reliable, but that there are some instances where Xenophon should be prefered (specifically the ancestry of Cyrus) is a reasonable summary of my (very nonexpert) understanding of the state of things. Again, however, nothing in this section has to do with the issue of the role of the Medes in Cyrus's empire nor how it reflects his political philosophy, the ostensible purpose of this section. Also worth noting, the 1985 Hirsch source is literally the only source in this section written within the last 50 years, and one of only 2 written in the past two thousand.

Herodotus contradicts Xenophon at several other points, most notably in the matter of Cyrus’s relationship with the Median Kingdom. Herodotus says that Cyrus led a rebellion against his maternal grandfather, Astyages king of Media, and defeated him, thereafter (improbably) keeping Astyages in his court for the remainder of his life (Histories 1.130). The Medes were thus "reduced to subjection" (1.130) and became "slaves" (1.129) to the Persians 20 years before the capture of Babylon in 539 BC. The Cyropaedia relates instead that Astyages died and was succeeded by his son Cyaxares II, the maternal uncle of Cyrus (1.5.2). In the initial campaign against the Lydians, Babylonians and their allies, the Medians were led by Cyaxares and the Persians by Cyrus, who was crown prince of the Persians, since his father was still alive (4.5.17). Xenophon relates that at this time the Medes were the strongest of the kingdoms that opposed the Babylonians (1.5.2).

Two things to note here. First off, this entire text is cited to Xenophon and Herodotus, not to more recent interpreters of these (not remotely obscure, and subject to literally thousands of years of commentary) sources. That's particularly important, because this section misrepresents (in Wikipedia's voice) what Herodotus actually says. The comment about the Medes becoming slaves isn't said by Herodotus's narration, but Herodotus puts it in the mouth of the Median king denouncing those who have betrayed him to the Persians by claiming that they will make the Medes slaves to Persian rulers instead of being slaves to another Median ruler. There is actually a lot of dispute in the literature about how Herodotus deals with ethnicity, but my (admittedly cursory) JSTOR search didn't come up with any articles supporting the idea that Herodotus portrays the post-conquest Medes as oppressed slaves, which is what this passage is arguing (indeed, what I did find argued quite the opposite, that Herodotus if anything exaggerates the role of Median practices in the Persian empire). So this section has to go as well, as it is utterly unsupported by sources and makes an argument that is both pure original research and not really relevant to Xenophon or his political philosophy.

There is an echo of this statement, verifying Xenophon and contradicting Herodotus, in the Harran Stele, a document from the court of Nabonidus.[20] In the entry for year 14 or 15 of his reign (542-540 BC), Nabonidus speaks of his enemies as the kings of Egypt, the Medes, and the Arabs. There is no mention of the Persians, although according to Herodotus and the current consensus the Medians had been made "slaves" of the Persians several years previously. It does not seem that Nabonidus would be completely misled about who his enemies were, or who was really in control over the Medes and Persians just one to three years before his kingdom fell to their armies.

Don't be fooled by that citation, it's to a collection of ancient texts saying that the Harran Stele exists and its text, not a source that says anything about the relative accuracy of Herodotus or Xenophon, much less how it informs our knowledge of Xenophon's political philosophy (unsurprising, since at 540 BC, it predates the birth of either one of them). Which is to be expected, since again this section is being used to refute a claim (Medes were treated as slaves) that Herodotus never makes. Again, there is a lively discussion in the literature of how Herodotus deals with ethnicity, but that belongs in an article about Herodotus, not here. Likewise, there is discussion of the Babylonian understanding of ethnicity and how it is portrayed in various documents, but again, that's not remotely relevant to this article.

Other archaeological evidence supporting Xenophon’s picture of a confederation of Medes and Persians, rather than a subjugation of the Medes by the Persians, comes from the bas-reliefs in the stairway at Persepolis. These show no distinction in official rank or status between the Persian and Median nobility. Although Olmstead followed the consensus view that Cyrus subjugated the Medes, he nevertheless wrote, "Medes were honored equally with Persians; they were employed in high office and were chosen to lead Persian armies."[21] A more extensive list of considerations related to the credibility of the Cyropaedia’s picture of the relationship between the Medes and Persians is found on the Cyropaedia page.

While we have a 20th century source here, it's a general history of the Persians from 1948. Not only has a massive amount of research been done since then, however, it again doesn't actually support the case it's being used for. As the article itself notes "Olmstead followed the consensus view that Cyrus subjugated the Medes," however the article then goes on to note that at one point he says Medes had a prominent and honored role in the Persian empire, which again, is only a contradiction if you attribute to Herodotus the argument that Cyrus enslaved the Medes, which, again, is an argument he doesn't make, Olmstead doesn't say he made, and still has nothing to do with Xenophon or his political philosophy.

Both Herodotus (1.123,214) and Xenophon (1.5.1,2,4, 8.5.20) present Cyrus as about 40 years old when his forces captured Babylon. In the Nabonidus Chronicle, there is mention of the death of the wife of the king (name not given) within a month after the capture of Babylon.[22] It has been conjectured that this was Cyrus’s first wife, which lends credibility to the Cyropaedia’s statement (8.5.19) that Cyaxares II gave his daughter in marriage to Cyrus soon (but not immediately) after the fall of the city, with the kingdom of Media as her dowry. When Cyaxares died about two years later the Median kingdom passed peaceably to Cyrus, so that this would be the true beginning of the Medo-Persian Empire under just one monarch.

Again, this citation is just to the original Babylonian document from the 500s BC. None of the following statement (that the death of the king's wife might have been the occasion of the marriage of a Median princess to Cyrus, that the Median kingdom was her dowry, or that Cyrus never conquered the Medes but inherited their land peacefully from his father-in-law) is supported by the citation, nor would it be particularly relevant to a discussion of Xenophon's political philosophy.

Again, I apologize for the wall of text, but since I was challenged to "rewrite it" to avoid "throwing out the baby with the bathwater," this line-by-line analysis seems like the easiest way to demonstrate that there's no baby there, just a lot of bathwater.Just a Rube (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

So you really think deleting the whole thing is appropriate? Maybe I should ask a different question: is there any published and serious discussion about Xenophon possibility getting some things more right than Herodotus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Again, I am not an expert. Obviously there is discussion of the reliability of Xenophon's works, as there is of any classical source. There are some things that Herodotus is seen as getting wrong that Xenophon is getting right; Cyrus's father's status is one in particular that I am aware of (it's mentioned in the Hiersch quote, but also in some more recent articles I came across in what, again, was a fairly cursory JSTOR search). I didn't see anything comparing Herodotus's treatment of the status of the Medes unfavorably with Xenophon's, but again I am not remotely an expert and am basing this off of a fairly limited search. Certainly the argument as it currently is given utterly misrepresents the scholarly discussion. But more broadly, the accuracy of Xenophon's sources in the Cyropaedia (which, a significant school of thought argues, wasn't really meant to be seen as an accurate history at all) doesn't really strike me as particularly important for an overview of Xenophon's entire life, and certainly not his political philosophy (which is where this section is currently located).

If we had a section on assessing Xenophon as a historian or a writer (not a bad idea, but not one I feel remotely competent to write), it might be relevant (although, again, I'm not sure the relative accuracy of the Cyropaedia, as opposed to his other works, should really be the focus). But it should be written entirely from scratch and reliant on secondary sources/commentaries (of which there are a plethora), and focused on Xenophon, not the current "Herodotus says X, Xenophon says Y" format. A more detailed analysis of the accuracy of individual strands of the Cyropaedia compared with Herodotus would presumably be more appropriate for the article on the Cyropaedia itself, rather than the overview of Xenophon as a whole. But again, here I am treading more in the area of opinion and style, which I hesitate to delve too deeply into. I am confident, however, in saying that the current section is extremely misleading to the extent that removing it would be a better service to the readers.Just a Rube (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Leaving some sort of careful mention of the topic would be better than deleting the whole section though. I think deleting a whole section because it was badly done is seen as the wrong approach on Wikipedia for practical reasons: it often leads to there being no mention at all of an issue of real interest, and secondarily it can lead to some future editor once again installing poor material because there was nothing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I suppose I can see that argument, although I do think that leaving an utterly misleading version like this is worse than nothing, and the fact that basically no one has touched it in the past 5 years (beyond adding an admittedly pretty picture of Median and Persian soldiers from a carving) is a good sign that it is actually a barrier to improvement. Certainly a section on "Relations Between Medes and Persians in the Cyropaedia" is not appropriate, because that isn't a topic that gets coverage in reliable sources, so there is nothing that can really be added (which again, is why it hasn't been really touched in the last 5 years), as there are no sources to add.

That said, I do agree that a section on Xenophon's reliability would be potentially useful. Again, I am not the right person to write it, however. Would leaving just the first couple lines of that section (basically, everything until the end of the Hiersch quote) strike you as an acceptable compromise? The basic gist seems a reasonable summary, and my main objection to it was that I don't have access to it, and given that every other source in that section is distorted to make an argument it doesn't make, I was uncomfortable assuming the only one I couldn't check wasn't similarly distorted (especially as it is essentially being used as a quote to have Hiersch criticize mainstream historians). Get rid of the subsection title (on Medo-Persian relations) and just have it as an introduction to the section on Xenophon's political thought in the Cyropaedia?Just a Rube (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you are able to find sourcing which makes you confident enough to delete a whole section for not being accurate, then you must have gathered enough information to put something back in as a place holder for future work?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you mean, like a paragraph that says (with a couple of citations) essentially "Xenophon didn't mean the Cyropaedia to be historical, and freely invented and altered characters and events such that they had no relationship with the historical record in order to suit his narrative and philosophical purpose, to which any remaining accurate facts were incidental" sure, I can do that. If you want to preserve some version of the current section arguing in favor of the Cyropaedia's picture of a peaceful of inheritance and union of the Medes and Cyrus is accurate, then no, I actually have at least two citations explicitly using that as a prototypical example of how Xenophon made stuff up to suit his narrative.Just a Rube (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Concerning the one sentence you propose, maybe we already have something like that? On the other hand, we need to be careful not to suggest that all parts of his Cyropedia have no connection to reality. What does the word "historical" mean in this sentence? Concerning details about the Medes, no I would not say this needs special discussion if our sources don't give it any. But thirdly, is there no published discussion about Xenophon getting anything correct in the Cyropedia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Looping back down before we indent off the side of the screen. As I said yesterday, I wouldn't object too much to leaving the couple of sentences that more to less say that; I'm mostly concerned to hang it all on Hirsch without having seen his original article to verify it, as that section actively misuses every other source it cites. But more broadly, the sources I've seen basically treat it as Xenophon writing the Cyropaedia (as opposed to his other works) as an intentional work of fiction designed to illustrate his view of an ideal ruler/philosophy/etc. (there is enough disagreement in the literature on the exact specifics of what he is trying to do that I feel uncomfortable trying to summarize). There is agreement, however, that he regularly invents characters and incidents that don't exist and never happened; when he does use names and events that did exist, he alters them such that they have little relationship either to how they are attested in his known sources or other sources that we have. While he occasionally gets things right that Herodotus gets wrong (for instance, Herodotus doesn't represent Cyrus as the son of a king, while Xenophon has his father already being a king of a minor Persian state, which we know from inscriptions to actually be the case), any facts are generally seen as incidental to his purposes and subordinate to his narrative needs (and I can throw in citations to explicitly say that). As well (just my observations from articles that I have read, not something I feel confident stating) in general, when Herodotus gets something wrong that the Cyropaedia gets right, the focus of most historical analysis I've seen tends to be "why did Herodotus (or his sources) get this wrong" (for instance, there's discussion of the deemphasis of Cyrus's paternal ancestry in Herodotus possibly representing the influence of later propaganda by Darius, who was not the son of a king, but again that's more seen as a commentary on Herodotus and his sources, with Xenophon's correctness in this case getting a brief a mention as evidence that alternative traditions circulated). And more broadly, I'd argue that a discussion of the nitty-gritty details of Xenophon's historical sources for the Cyropaedia belongs in that article, rather than this one about Xenophon more broadly (and certainly not where it's currently placed, which is smack-dab in the middle of a section on how his various works reveal his overall political philosophy of governance). A simple statement that the Cyropaedia was not meant to be a factual narrative of Cyrus's life, but one that describes Xenophon's ideal ruler is really all that we need here (especially as that statement probably doesn't apply to the rest of Xenophon's more historically-focused work, again it's mostly specific to the Cyropaedia specifically as far as I can tell).Just a Rube (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article presents scholarly argument as simple fact (e.g. that Xenophon was "pro-oligarchic," which is disputed; that the Education of Cyrus was written "to outline his political and moral philosophy. He did this by endowing a fictional version of the boyhood of Cyrus the Great, founder of the first Persian Empire, with the qualities of what Xenophon considered the ideal ruler"-- this is pure interpretive argument, and not anywhere set out in the text, etc., and certaintly does not reflect the rich range of arguments about what Xenophon is doing in the Cyropaedia. An encyclopedic article on Xenophon should present a balanced, comprehensive view of various scholarly interpretations and argument of his work, etc., along the NPOV guidelines, and not simply take the arguments of one scholar, or possibly one editor, as the fact of the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claroche (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

You may well be right, but just as a first step I propose (1) reversing the small deletion you down, which we can re-reverse later, and (2) calling for sources to support various ways of handling this topic. I propose this partly because it is clear that you are also clearly aware that SOME scholars think he was pro oligarchic and pro Spartan. I think in the end we will need a new paragraph summarizing both sides of that old argument. WP policy tells us to simply report such arguments, but definitely not to ignore tham (which is done in some types of encyclopedia).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Paul August regarding your revert of the "co-author", Encyclopedia Britannica lists Xenophon as an editor of Thucydides's work referencing Diogenes Laertius (ii. 6, 13). Doesn't it make Xenophon a co-author? Artem Veremey (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

An editor is not a co-author; those are distinct terms for different roles. What's more, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is scathing about Laertius's suggestion that Xenophon edited Thucydides' work and struggles to explain how Laertius might have come up with it, while the Legacy and assessment section of our article on Laertius indicates modern views of his reliability. The current Britannica does not include the suggestion. NebY (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Paul August ☎ 14:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The facts are following:

- There is a long tradition (that can be traced to at least 3rd century AD) to recognize Xenophon's influence on Thucydides's work.

- The writing attributed to Thucydides does not cover many essential events of the Peloponnesian Wars. Thucydides' works cannot be considered the sole source of Peloponnesian War history.

- Xenophon's Hellenica picks up exactly where Thucydides's writing left off and aligns with Thucydides's style.

- Thucydides and Xenophon combined together create a comprehensive account of the Peloponnesian Wars.

- Both Thucydides and Xenophon took an active part in the Spartan and Athenian conflict as politicians and military leaders.

The above facts make Xenophon Thucydides's co-author of the history (note the lower case) of the Peloponnesian Wars.

Encyclopedia Britannica may remove the suggestion, but Diogenes Laertius still has it. Artem Veremey (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

One is usually called a co-author, if one collaborates with another person in the writing of a one particular work. Thucydides's, History of the Peloponnesian War, and Xenophon's Hellenica are, of course, two different works. As for the "history (note the lower case) of the Peloponnesian Wars", I don't think such a thing qualifies as something one could be a co-author of. Moreover the current wording seems perfectly adequate. Paul August ☎ 17:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The current wording listing important historical points of view was completely removed. @NebY seems to have very subjective issues with it.

Whether Thucydides and Xenophon represent a single work is at least a discussion topic with multiple points of view. Shouldn't all points of view be covered? For millennia, Thucydides and Xenophon have been read together. Thucydides did not publish his work himself because of an abrupt death. It is unclear who published Thucydides's works, but historical tradition mentions Thucydides' daughter and Xenophon. Whether Thucydides and Xenophon directly collaborated is unknown. Would Thucydides and Xenophon actually collaborate if not for Thucydides's abrupt death? To what extent Xenophon edited Thucydides's work is actively debated. Both works are written in the same Greek dialect, perfectly match the timeline, and have very similar styles. Xenophon lived to publish his works, and he influenced and maybe even published the work of Thucydides. For the 4th century BC, if that is not a collaboration, what is? Artem Veremey (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We could argue your points one by one, for example:

- Who, apart from Laertius, asserts Xenophon's influence on Thucydides's work and are any of them modern scholars?

- There's much more we'd like to know about the war than Thucydides tells us directly. That doesn't make any other historian of the war, ancient or modern, Thucydides' co-author.

- Ancient historians read their predecessor's works and often began their narrative after another's. That doesn't make them co-authors, any more than Thucydides is a co-author of the history of Greece with Herodotus, or any of the writers of sequels to Pride and Prejudice, retellings of it from different viewpoints, or versions with added zombies, are Jane Austen's co-authors.

- Xenophon's style is plain Attic, Thucydides' style has fascinated and confounded readers for millennia (you might enjoy Dionysius of Halicarnassus's criticism of him, or the opening of Beard's review of Kagan, Thucydides wrote his History of the Peloponnesian War in almost impossibly difficult Greek and her expansion on that.).

- A couple of commonalities in careers do not make people co-authors. For example, many generals have engaged in politics and written histories or memoirs; that doesn't make them co-authors, not even those that have written in the same language about the same period.

- You write that it is unclear who published Thucydides's works, you say that Xenophon maybe even published the work of Thucydides. That's speculation and not a basis for claiming co-authorship.

But ultimately such points and the conclusions you draw from them don't matter, because this is Wikipedia and we have a policy, Wikipedia:No original research. In a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Please, cite a modern, secondary reliable source that says Xenophon was a co-author with Thucydides. NebY (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@NebY your argument is very biased towards using selective modern sources exclusively. You are editorializing the discussion by picking which sources to list and which source to omit. You are ignoring another Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

I am simply documenting the points of view I came across. You are taking a very specific one-sided position. Xenophon's influence on Thucydides is documented by plenty of modern scholars. Artem Veremey (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We need you to cite those modern scholars so that we can follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, otherwise we'd be relying only on your above reasoning, in breach of WP:OR. NebY (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to site source to the best of my ability.

The opinion questioning reliability of Diogenes Laertius should not be presented as a fact. All ancient historians have been questioned by modern scholars in one way or another. Opinions of modern historians do not make ancient works any more or less reliable/significant.

I list Diogenes Laertius because that is the oldest and extremely influential source. Ignoring Diogenes Laertius and maintaining neutrality is impossible.

Marcellinus is another ancient source that references Thucydides's daughter and Xenophon.

Letronne references Xenophon as an editor of Thucydides.

Modern sources are far too numerous and only represent an option. Here are a few examples. Peter J. Rahn in "Xenophon's Developing Historiography" explores the connection between Xenophon and Thucydides by analyzing Xenophon's text. "The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides" (2017) ISBN 9780199340385 explores Xenophon and Thucydides connection. Aggelos Kapellos explores intertextual relationship of Xenophon to Thucydides in "Xenophon's Peloponnesian War. Trends in classics" (2019) ISBN 9783110660654.

All of the above are discussions and should be included as discussions and not as facts. Drawing conclusions based on these discussions is the original research you yourself are objecting to. Artem Veremey (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for looking those up. Which of those modern sources describes Xenophon as a co-author of Thucydides? NebY (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia policy itself is "biased" towards using selective modern sources so that is not a good argument here. Maybe it is worth mentioning that the dubious suggestions of classical authors are sometimes worth mentioning for their notability (WP:NOTE), and not because modern academics agree with them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes indeed. Of course then we need reliable sources for the influence, notoriety, comedy value or whatever of the dubious suggestions being so great we should mention them. It's not quite turtles all the way down, but we do need our turtles. NebY (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I noticed a minor problem with the clarity of one of the sentences in this article, which I fixed. I then noticed the broader problems flagged by the tag. I love Xenophon, and it seems a shame for someone as important as he is to classical Greek literature to not have an appropriately curated article. So, I was considering making fixing this article one of my projects. However, I don't want to step on anyone's toes so I just wanted to make my intentions to fix this article and get the tag removed known here. If you are an editor who feels strongly about the direction of this page and has cared about it in the past, or wants to do so in the future, I salute you and would be very grateful for any guidance or tips you have. Equally, if you want to tell me to back off and that you're going to fix it yourself! then I will gladly stand down. I just want to see it fixed. Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good thanks. Not sure what happened there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply