This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 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 our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek art on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
I broke the section called "In other cultures" into two because 90% of the material there related to British matters (with a little of the US thrown in). It makes eminently more sense to call this "Anglo-American" than "Other". Ne pas? 153.103.130.11 (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, for several reasons. Firstly the "A-A" examples are really rather tenuous, and/or local, whereas the Asian ones are taken extemely seriously in those countries, or have been, and have far better coverage in WP:RS. The supposed "Anglo-American" examples have literally nothing in common, and are separated by many centuries. Only Anglocentrentic chauvinism could consider that they belong together and should be placed above the Asian examples. "Anglo-American" is an unusual grouping on Wikipedia, and only acceptable where there is a strong connection. On another matter, there is far to much info on the London Stone, which is all found at its own article, and really does not need repeating. I have to say the ISP seems entirely focused on his own addition to the article, and has lost sight of the global perspective of the topic as a whole. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, I’m not sure where the statement that “ ‘Anglo-American’ is an unusual grouping on Wikipedia, and only acceptable where there is a strong connection” comes from. It is a fairly common formulation in the literate world, bespeaking the (partly) common traditions of the two cultures/societies. I’m not aware that there’s a Wiki-policy against “Anglo-American”. And then “Only Anglocentrentic chauvinism could consider that they belong together and should be placed above the Asian examples.” Well, God forbid we be chauvinists & put Anglos & Americans together. There was no implication that the A-As are to be “placed above” Asians. Sorry if you thought that came across as offensive, but I don’t see it.
I agree with you that many “examples are really rather tenuous”. The real problem with this article, which plays into the present discussion, is that it is essentially a loose list of two, maybe even three, types of supposed or alleged “palladia”: (1) items (objects, metaphors, etc) which *explicitly* harken back to the Trojan Palladium (TP) of Greek history/mythology (some of the A-A examples); (2) items which are *like* the TP in a vague way (the “Christian” examples), but are really only related to it as being apotropaic objects without any explicit reference to, or derivation from, the TP; and (3) items which *clearly* have no direct connection to the TP, because they derive from an entirely non-Western tradition uncontaminated by Classical (Greco-Roman) studies (the “Asian” examples). One wonders what keeps editors from introducing *any* apotropaic object, from anywhere in the world, into the mix. Who says these are all “palladia” anyway? It’s a fairly loose (& in some cases, western-centric) label to affix.
My own preference would be to limit the “examples” to items which have some explicit, or historic, connection to the TP. (There are other articles for generic apotropaic objects.) Probably the article should not have been split into two (Palladium (classical antiquity) vs Palladium (protective image)). I did most of the early work on (what’s now called) Palladium (classical antiquity), then I didn’t look at it again until very recently when I saw the (explicit) reference to it regarding the London Stone. I was rather dismayed at what had happened in the meantime. 153.103.130.11 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So do you still think the arrangement you keep reverting to is acceptable, and if so, why? Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit which you reverted. I haven't changed my mind about the edit. Do I think the "arrangement" currently in place is optimal? Certainly not. 153.103.130.11 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said acceptable, to which the answer is presumably yes. It would be nice to have some reasons, as you give none above. You don't seem to grasp very well that "palladium" has simply become a term for a concept, so complaining that most of the examples here lack connection with the TP original is beside the point. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, your condescending attitude toward me is not helpful. ("...the ISP seems entirely focused on his own addition to the article" & "You don't seem to grasp very well that..." Hmmm. You don't seem to grasp common civility very well.... Note that I have not been condescending toward you.) Secondly, you presume a lot when you say "presumably yes" [I must think the arrangement is acceptable]. Obviously I don't. Are you deliberately trying to be provocative? (Presumably yes.) You complain that "it would be nice to have some reasons, as you give none above". I gave none above? (Reasons why the article, even with my recent edit, is not acceptable.) Really? What about these: (1) I agree with you that many “examples are really rather tenuous”...; (2) The real problem with this article...is that it is essentially a loose list of two, maybe even three, types of supposed or alleged “palladia”; and (3) Probably the article should not have been split into two.... Did you not read what I wrote above? Or do you just have a very short term memory? (Ok, that's condescending of me, I admit... but you've pushed me to it...) Thirdly, I completely disagree that "lack connection with the TP original is beside the point". It is exactly the thing that makes the article amorphous & potentially without any boundaries at all. 153.103.130.11 (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the boundaries of the article are things that RS call palladia - lots in the case of the Asian and some other examples, about 1 in the case of the London Stone. no arguments here re "Anglo-American" I see. Johnbod (talk)
Lots of RSs (reliable sources) on things called palladia? Really? Of the 14 indented examples, fully 8 don't have any reference at all. (The Tower ravens are a particularly weak example.) I suspect that if I scrutinized the 6 referenced ones they wouldn't all reference "palladium" or "palladia". Two of the 3 Asian examples have no reference. No, there isn't any way to make a case that the article is well supported by carefully considered RSs. Still struggling with "Anglo-American"? I could copy-and-paste again, but why don't you just go back & read what I already said? That is pretty self-evident anyway... 153.103.130.11 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
