Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 22 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Media involving Rome + Greece?

Should movies, games, books, etc. (e.g. Gladiator (2000 film), Total War: Rome II) be added to the wikiproject? The Verified Cactus 100% 22:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of them (Wonder Woman, for example) are; I have no idea how consistently this is applied. There have been previous discussions on this talkpage about the scope of this project (e.g. here) but I can't see any which specifically address popular media. Personally, I suspect that members of WP:CGR are no more interested in Wonder Woman, or Rome Total War, than the average editor, and there is no point adding them to the project, but I don't care enough to try to change things either way. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, in most of these movies & games, the attempt to be faithful to the facts of the ancient world as we know them range from poor to nonexistent. For novels & other fiction, it is often fairly good (for example Steven Saylor's "Roma sub Rosa" series), yet even the best known has otherwise little connection with Classical studies. By this I mean to say, none of it influences the study of ancient Greece & Rome in the way Science Fiction has influenced related fields in scientific rsearch & engineering. So I don't see any reason to add those works to the wikiproject as a general rule. -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that there's no firm rule. Spartacus (TV series) is in, but I, Claudius isn't (I think I'll fix that). My suggestion is that if antiquity is central to the work, than it belongs. So Gladiator would be in, but Wonder Woman wouldn't (only tangential to the story).Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I see no problem adding these to the project if you feel they're worth it, and have some idea of how they fit in. And frankly I'm delighted that Wonder Woman is considered part of the project, even though I admit that the connection is less obvious than with most of the sword-and-sandal genre. I'm sure that's just sentimentality on my part, but I don't see any reason for it to go. Let's avoid contentious debates about whether to remove topics that have at least some justification for being in the project, and focus on adding those that ought to be in, and removing only those that have no obvious connection to our topic (for example, there's no reason to include Doctor Who, even though there have been a few episodes involving or taking place in ancient Rome and its environs). P Aculeius (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization: Pontifex Maximus RM (and others)

For those of you who haven't got WP:Classical Greece and Rome Alerts on your watchlist, there's a debate going on about whether to move Pontifex Maximus to pontifex maximus, on the grounds that some sources don't capitalize it, and the MOS requires lowercase titles except in the case of proper names. I think the case is rather ambiguous, since there are quite a lot of sources that go either way; and this is far from the only such title in our project. For example, we have Roman Senate, although many sources do not capitalize "senate", and Tribune of the Plebs, even though I usually treat this as a common noun. I think that the names of offices and institutions tend to be amphibious when it comes to capitalization; when addressing someone by their title, it's natural to capitalize, but when using the title as a description it seems more appropriate to use it as a common noun; I might write "Servius Tullius, the sixth King of Rome" or "the sixth Roman king"; here the way it's worded makes a difference to me.

Pontifex Maximus seems to me like one of these titles that seems less like a common noun, but I've probably written it both ways, and perhaps not even consistently. I don't see why we should try to enforce consistency in cases where something could be capitalized or not, as long as it's used logically and consistently within individual articles. But what do you think? Is it important to move this, if it's often capitalized? Or do we just go with whichever capitalization seems to be the most common? And if so, how do we determine this? The ngram suggests that usage has gone from majority capitalized to about even. Which books do we prioritize, and which exclude? Not sure this is an issue that can be easily resolved. P Aculeius (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can be of much help in that discussion. Partly because I consider arguments over Wikipedia style issues to be an infertile swamp that ends up alienating good editors while encouraging useless ones. (They shouldn't be, but that's how things have evolved on Wikipedia.) Partly because I have no strong preference either way, something you also admit to in the discussion linked. And in part because I can't find an authority I acknowledge that makes a pronouncement on this matter. (My usual go-to authority, the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 6th edition, doesn't cover this issue.) FWIW, the 3rd edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which should otherwise serve as a reliable standard on style issues, doesn't capitalize this title, but they don't capitalize a lot of titles that I would, e.g. "Emperor"; I suspect that British English also deprecates capitalization of titles.

About the only statements I can make on the issue are: (1) it appears that there is a consensus to deprecate use of capitalization in titles as much as possible (which, IMHO, appears to be current British practice); & (2) I resent anyone who isn't part of this Wikiproject -- or has not demonstrated some expertise in this subject -- telling me whether or not how to use capitalization in articles on ancient history. And I admit point 2 isn't helpful in coming to a durable consensus on the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rewrite of Meditations

Please see this proposed rewrite of Meditations.

Added detailed section on the history of the text
Added list of those he thanks in book I
Re-ordered quotes
Separated "notes" from "references"

Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should reconsider this rewrite. While the current article could still be improved, it's well-organized, concise, and the language flows reasonably well. The proposed rewrite seems to get bogged down in minutiae before it reaches the meat of the article: the "overview" section mixes together details of the contents in the first paragraph, followed by multiple short paragraphs on the structure, composition, history, purpose, and historical significance all jumbled together. Much of this is then repeated in subsequent sections.

In the current article, there is a three-paragraph lead, covering much of what you've put in the "overview" section, but it reads more clearly and summarizes the topic nicely. It then progresses to the structure and themes of the work, treating the organization, style, purpose, and circumstances of its writing in one paragraph, and then using two more to discuss the themes and philosophy expressed in it. The proposed rewrite not only separates and disorganizes the lead, but then follows it with sixteen paragraphs broken into eight subsections on the history and speculations about the history of the work since the time of Marcus Aurelius, before it reaches the "structure and themes" section. Along the way, the original organization and title, or lack thereof, are mentioned or discussed multiple times in different places, and you've taken time to comment on the comments that other scholars had about the work at various points in time, which seems premature given that the contents of the Meditations have yet to be discussed.

The "structure and themes" section as rewritten dwells primarily on the physical structure of the Meditations; the lines, the line breaks, the titles, etc., and on the rhetorical devices used; metaphor, quotations, etc., all of which give us a rather vague picture of how Marcus Aurelius was writing, but not what his point was. The actual philosophical concepts and discussion from the original article have been replaced by descriptions of the way the emperor used language. There's then a summary of Book I, which suggests that it was written as an afterthought, although there's no summary of any of the other books; is a list of persons thanked and an explanation of why each of them is thanked really necessary detail for this article?

The "reception and criticism" section in the original article could have stood more balance, as it comes out rather heavily weighted toward criticism; but the only changes you've proposed making are removing the sentence on Maxwell Staniforth (why? Is the opinion of a major translator of the work not relevant?), and excising all but the punctuation in the paragraph about the series of novels at the end (probably a good call). It might have benefited more from some additional positive points of view by modern scholars and philosophers, or perhaps some rehabilitation following the two long negative paragraphs.

Under "quotations" you've retained all but three of those from the original; I can't tell why you threw those three out and added one rather convoluted new one at the end. I see you've arranged all of the quotations in sequence; I can only assume the original order wasn't random, so why is placing them in sequence an improvement?

At the end of the original article was a section discussing the history of the Meditations' printing, but in the rewrite, part of that has been broken off and added to another section much earlier in the article. Does it really make sense to have this type of information in different places, instead of all together at the end?

In all the original article seems to be better organized, and it certainly reads more clearly. It goes into some specifics with respect to the underlying philosophy, which the rewrite does not; the proposed rewrite is drowning in details that aren't really necessary here, but could stand better organization and perhaps a more appropriate location in the article; useful and interesting material has been removed for no apparent reason; and there are other issues; for example, in the infobox you've confused the date of composition with the date of publication, and confused Richard Graves with Robert Graves.

My suggestion would be to take the new material on the history or provenance of the work, and any detailed structural analysis of the contents, and either summarize them in one or two paragraphs that could form a section between the "quotations" and "editions" section, which should stay largely as they currently are, or make a separate article on just these details, and link to it from the existing article. P Aculeius (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius:your insights always find their way to the heart of the matter. I will take these suggestions and run with them. Thanks. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't mean to come across as harsh. But it looks like the present article is the product of a great deal of collaborative editing up to the present, and the product of this work looks pretty good, so I don't think a wholesale rewrite is a good idea. I think the best choice would be to create either additional sections to the existing article, covering the new information and insights you have, or create subsidiary articles linked to the main one in appropriate places. I'm not saying you're not doing good work, just that it probably shouldn't replace the existing article in these circumstances. P Aculeius (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in Italy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sexuality in Italy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 70.52.11.217 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flora

What a shame, there is no article on the Roman deity....!