This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see ourproject page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see ourtalk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oflinguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPsychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
The redirect of this article, and stripping of all meaningful content was ill-considered. I've attempted to right this wrong. This is content that should be a stand-alone article and not get mixed up with whatever it is that the editors atSycophancy have in their imagination - having made no effort whatsoever to provide content or sources to that article.Fladrif (talk)02:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--
I'd like to see some scholarly references supporting the claim that Athens did not have a police force in the ancient times. As someone born and raised in Athens, Greece and having been educated in the Greek school system, I was always under the impression that the term "astynomia" (αστυνομία) = police comes from ancient Athens, exactly because there was a police force, indeed. Even though I am in favor of the notion that Athens, yes, did have a police force, I am open to any scholarly proof, therefore, searching for arguments in support of both side of the question, please do the same to clarify this. Thank you - Dimitrios Panagiotou, Athens GR. Contact info: dimitriosp (at) hotmail (dot) com.— Precedingunsigned comment added by99.135.91.121 (talk)04:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
News to me, I thought even if the person really does highly admire,and "worship" the person they'd also be one. Basically, a groveling parasite, someone who lowers themself and is highly psychologically dependent on the person's approval/good opinion of them.— Precedingunsigned comment added by71.184.110.64 (talk)20:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor has twice deleted this article, redirecting it, undoing the work of more than a dozen editors, without discussion. It looks like either vandalism. This should not be deleted or redirected absent a consensus atArticles for Deletion.Banks Irk (talk)16:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I had to restore that redirect because ofFladrif (talk·contribs)'s actions towards Penbat, a longtime contributor, and also that Sycophancy is a more broader psychological topic. In this case, it wasnotvandalism, but abold reversion of a blocked user's edits. It was clearly ingood faith and characterizing these edits as vandalism is unfortunately considered apersonal attack. Please show somerespect towards your fellow editors and their efforts. Fladrif, who started this article, has a history of chronicallydisruptive behavior going way back to 2009 ([1]), and was alsowikihoundingPenbat (talk·contribs) (especially with regards to the subjects Penbat edited, abuse and bullying, as well as on this article,) to the point where he was unable to do any significant editing, and Fladrif wasindef-blocked for his actions back in April 2013. He even seemed to side withStar767(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), a sockpuppet of a long-term disruptive user on the psychology-related articles. I think all of Fladrif's edits on the abuse articles should be reverted. According to Penbat, Sycophancy (flattery that is very obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree) is the psychology concept which is broader and incorporates "sycophant". So, my point is that we should take this up toWP:AFD. I removed it and was trying to help Penbat get rid of Fladrif's edits, but it was reverted twice, once by an IP and once by Banks Irk, a newcomer to Wikipedia. I am planning to take this to AFD to get a consensus. But if it doesn't work, a merge discussion should be taking place
Basically, my point is that Sycophancy is a powerful social psychological academic concept which fully deserves its own Wikipedia page and should be expanded on. As such, we should redirect this back and expand the Sycophancy article. Even if the AFD results in either a keep, we should open up amerge discussion on this matter if anyone is interested. Thoughts?Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)17:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that AfD, though it has gone there, is an imperfect venue, and that it could and should have been considered at Requested Merges. A valid AfD outcome might well be to merge withSycophancy.FiddleFaddle22:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the AFD closes as keep or no consensus or if I withdraw this AFD, I will propose a requested merge. Banks Irk, please don't insult or make assumptions about me. Your speculations are just that, speculations. I'm not vandalizing the article by a long shot. If I did something to hurt you, then I am sorry, it was really not my intention to hurt or upset anyone. Timtrent, I agree that an AFD is not the right venue. I might plan to withdraw this and consider it atrequested merge. However, if you take a look at mybarnstars as well as the new articles I have created, these will disprove any allegations you may have about me.Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)02:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just write the other article and leave this one alone. They're only tangentially related by a historical accident of etymology. You want to mergesoul withsoul? It's just a different thing that sounds the same. That happens in languages.—alf laylah wa laylah (talk)03:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I just want to come up with some ideas. I've already withdrawn the AFD and I think aproposed merge should be a good idea, but if that's the case then, I apologize for my mistake I had made. It was made ingood faith. There was a discussion about the merge to Wiktionarya while back. I read the article, but it does not seem right to me. I think that, due to the usage of the term in Modern English, should be merged. But if there are no objections, I propose that we should do aproposed merge. If not, that's fine with me. Okay?Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)03:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sycophancy should not be moved to wiktionary, but that's actually irrelevant to this page, which is only tangentially related to sycophancy as that term is used in English. Why are we having this discussion on the talk page of *this* article?—alf laylah wa laylah (talk)03:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alf, one of my points in this discussion here is that simply, the word sycophant is not only related to linguistics and classics, but also pertaining to psychology as indicated in a couple of sources that I am trying to find. I can only consider that sycophant and sycophancy could be the same thing as one of these encompasses a more broader psychological standpoint, but I could be wrong. I'll work on this a bit later. I am discussing this so we can come up with a good compromise and build up aconsensus among other users. I'm going to discuss a possible merge about it on the other article atTalk:Sycophancy.Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)03:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If one reads the reference to the French lexicon cited to illustrate the meaning of this word, one finds that it is actually closer to the English than to the Greek (Pamour (talk)11:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)).[reply]
