Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mylasa

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mylasa[edit]

Like the previously deleted Battle of Pedasa, this battle appears to not have happened. It gets a whopping total of 5 GHits, all of which are related to the Wikipedia article and not to the actual battle. No references appear to be forthcoming, other than an extremely brief mention in a book in Google Books. It should just be deleted. JuJube (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the fact that a similar article was deleted for similar reasons. Original research. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I loathe "per nom" as a rationale, but the nominator covered everything extremely well. A ni Mate 05:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tricky eh? What else can be said? This shouldn't have an article. dougweller (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another example of OR. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another in quite a long list. Might it be an idea to have a systematic look through all related articles created by this user, or those where this user created most of the content? They have quite a heavy footprint across this place. --Nickhh (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As we've been able to prove many of this user's articles hoaxes, are we getting to the point where they could be speedied as blatant hoaxes? Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this article was not by the now-blocked Ariobarza (talk · contribs). Although he's been working on it, most of the work appears to have been done by Secthayrabe (talk · contribs), who also created Battle of Pedasa. Unfortunately we seem to have a systemic problem with our articles on ancient Persian history - there is a group of editors who are persistently filling up Wikipedia with original research and misused sources. I think it would be useful to have a proper review of these articles and editors and work out what to do with them; I'll put something together and post a link for anyone who wants to participate. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the problem does seem to go wider than just the one editor. I wasn't trying to blame them for starting every bad article here! But they do seem to have been involved in a lot of them at one point or other ... --Nickhh (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read and was partially involved in the situation, let's not restart anything that may agitate the user in question. The person served his block, give him a chance to do something good before slamming him again. I suppose I'm asking that we stay on point and discuss the article rather than the person behind the article. MuZemike (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my intention - I was merely taking the opportunity to raise the point that there is a wider problem that might need to be looked at once this AFD is done and dealt with (on its own merits). --Nickhh (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been investigating this "wider" problem, chiefly by looking at the contributions of the editors responsible for these junk articles. I've posted the results at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems (it's a work in progress, as I'm still going through the contributions). Please feel free to add to it as you see fit and leave any comments at User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Urgh, sigh, what can say... Okay, Herodotus mentions this battle, he talks about in 3 full pages. It happened. The first paragraph does not need to sourced. The current version of this battle does not seem fit with what Herodotus says, therefore it needs to be rewritten, not deleted, and please explain why its OR, not just say (as another article says saying ONE LINERS, is not a good thing to do on articles for deletion pages) Delete As original research, please say w h y it is OR. Just because the one or two sentences appear to be OR, does not mean the whole article should be deleted. And as I am now unblocked I will work in my drafts, and update this article to the best of my ability. Thanks in advance.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

No currently published edition of Herotodus is in the sources list. How is anyone to know that Herotodus uses 3 pages on it? --Alvestrand (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning towards keep, but I'd like to see someone on the delete side clearly explain why this article is felt to be a hoax (with reference to the known facts, not the editors). Everyking (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the sources, and more sources will be presented,[1] Herodotus talks about it in 3 pages, 355-358. Therefore this should conclude the AFD. thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
- I'm more than amenable to changing my mind about this, but producing a limited preview book from google and stating that the AfD should thus end isn't a good or even an okay argument. Anyway, here's a better online copy of The Histories, since it is a full rather than limited preview. Unless the two translations vary greatly, little of what is in our article is supported by the text you've presented. I'd also be interested to see what modern scholarship has to say about the battle or the campaign in general. Herodotus is a good start, but we can't base articles off of him alone without some modern context. A ni Mate 02:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why don't you try Google Books, last time I checked there was more than a hundred results on the books about this battle, of course its mentioned by modern scholarship. Or you can ask a real historian. Plus different translations would not change the fact that the battle happened or not, and their would be only 1% difference between translations. I don't think translating ancient greek is that hard that each translation differs greatly anyway, so it has nothing to do with translations. BUT it has to do with editors who can not except things easily and need to waist other peoples times, and do not research for themselves. Thats the real issue here.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Reply: All the links being supplied above don't come up with anything for me about this supposed event. I did my own search on the Web, Books and Scholar for "Battle of Mylasa" and got no hits at all for that phrase (other than to the WP article). This is not of course definitive, but it tends towards the conclusion - not that this is a "hoax" as such - but that there are no external reliable sources for the fact that an event like this took place, at least under this name. This is of course open to being proven wrong - but Ariobarza, you will have to come up with specific sources and relevant details. If it is coming from an off-line source (often of course far better than online sourcing) please explain exactly which source, and supply the supporting text. I will also repeat the point that you give the impression of having decided yourself that this thing happened, and then started on the work of simply google searching for some evidence, however tenuous, to back it up. Even if you can drag up one or two clearer hints that this may have happened, it is doubtful that it deserves a whole page to itself, based on a mix of osbcure and unclear references and speculation by WP editors. I'm sorry, but that's just the way this place works. --Nickhh (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for the friendly comment Nickhh, but I copy pasted this from this p. 317-318, [The Histories] , and this is what it says;

(Thus the Cyprians having been free for one year were again reduced to servitude But Daurises who had married a daughter of Darius and Hymees and Otanes and other Persian generals who also had married daughters of Darius having pursued those of the lonians who had attacked Sardis and having driven them to their ships when they had conquered them in battle next divided the cities among themselves and proceeded to plunder them Daurises directing his march toward the cities on the Hellespont took Dardanus he also took Abydos Percote Lampsacus and Paesus these he took each in one day But as he was advancing from Paesus against Parium news was brought him that the Carians having conspired with the lonians had revolted from the Persians Therefore turning back from the Hellespont he led his army against Caria Somehow news of this was brought to the Carians before Daurises arrived The Carians having heard of it assembled at what are called the White Columns on the river Marsyas which flowing from the territory of Idrias falls into the |Maeander| (by the city of |Mylasa|) When the Carians were assembled on this spot several other propositions were made of which the best appeared to be that of Pixodarus son of Mausolus a Cyndian who had married the daughter of Syennesis King of the Cicilians His opinion was that the Carians having crossed the Maeander and having the river in their rear should so engage in order that the Carians not being able to retreat and being compelled to remain on their ground might be made even braver than they naturally were This opinion however did not prevail but that the Maeander should rather be in the rear of the Persians than of themselves to the end that if the Persians should be put to flight and worsted in the engagement they might have no retreat and fall into the river Afterward the Persians having come up and crossed the Maeander the Carians thereupon came to an engagement with the Persians on the banks of the river |Marsyas| and they fought an obstinate battle and for a long time but at last were overpowered by numbers Of the Persians there fell about two thousand and of the Carians ten thousand Such of them as escaped from thence were shut up in Labranda in a large precinct and sacred grove of plane trees dedicated to Jupiter Stratius The Carians are the only people we know who offer sacrifices to Jupiter Stratius They then being shut up in this place consulted on the means of safety whether they would fare better by surrendering themselves to the Persians or by abandoning Asia altogether While they were deliberating about this the Milesians and their allies came to their assistance upon this the Carians gave up what they were before deliberating about and prepared to renew the war and they engaged with the Persians when they came up and having fought were more signally beaten than before though in the whole many fell the Milesians suffered most [Now for Battle of Pedasa] The Carians however afterward recovered this wound and renewed the contest For hearing that the Persians designed to invade their cities they placed an ambuscade on the way to Pedasus into which the Persians falling by night were cut to pieces both they and their generals Daurises Amorges and Sisamaces and with them perished Myrses son of Gyges The leader of this ambuscade was Heraclides son of Ibanolis a Mylassian Thus these Persians were destroyed)

And this is not enough for a battle article? Even Herodotus' text contains an unorganized Background, Battle, Aftermath, and more, and all I have to do is find a million other secondary sources, and yah. ALSO it is because of this fellow I wrongly named it Mylasa, I THINK we need to change the title to Battle of the Marsyas, this is why Battle of the Maeander, he calls it this, and says it's in 497 BC PLEASE click on this and read it fully, warning it may cause you a heart attack, its shocking to the eyes, thats it. Heres the big one, Battle of the Marsyas, it was along this river AND do a googlebook search for Battle of the Marsyas, you will be suprised. Here is an 1989 source, look for the word Marsyas and there is too much to put here, like 720 different sources, average dates between 1900's and 2000's. THE END.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

THIS is not a source I will include for the article, because it is a snippet preview, but it at least proves the [validity] of the new title, which is for exact [verification] of the NEW title that is to be given to Battle of Mylasa, which the new title is Battle of the Marsyas, here it is, Battle of the Marsyas, crystal clearity. Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Well done, you appear to have found details of a battle, with a name, which has at least one proper source. However it is an entirely different battle (this should have been easy to spot, because it appears to be a land battle in a different place with different combatants, rather than a "joint naval attack" etc as described in the old "Mylasa" info, now retained under this new name). Sorry, this article should still be deleted. Feel free to start from scratch with a new article about the different battle. Do you really just make this all up as you go along? --Nickhh (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet more OR. --Folantin (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced OR. Mathsci (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/ Keep Your absolutely right Nickhh, but just so you know I created this article, but never made up the text about joint naval attack The battle was written by someone else. I think we should talk to him about where he got his sources from, because I do not think he is lying, and I even raised the issue on the talk page, please check it out. I will start anew, and make it my priority to edit this article for today, thanks again.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.