Talk:Herodotus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Slave labor & pyramids[edit]

Where does H say that slaves built the pyramids? I searched the Gutenberg eText (maccauley translation) of Vol. 2 for the word "slaves" and also for "pyramid." I got no hits for the former. The discussions of pyramids include the following:

"he then bade all the Egyptians work for him. So some were appointed to draw stones from the stone-quarries in the Arabian mountains to the Nile, and others he ordered to receive the stones after they had been carried over the river in boats, and to draw them to those which are called the Libyan mountains; and they worked by a hundred thousand men at a time, for each three months continually. Of this oppression there passed ten years while the causeway was made by which they drew the stones, which causeway they built, and it is a work not much less, as it appears to me, than the pyramid; for the length of it is five furlongs and the breadth ten fathoms and the height, where it is highest, eight fathoms, and it is made of stone smoothed and with figures carved upon it. For this they said, the ten years were spent, and for the underground he caused to be made as sepulchral chambers for himself in an island, having conducted thither a channel from the Nile. For the making of the pyramid itself there passed a period of twenty years;"

"On the pyramid it is declared in Egyptian writing how much was spent on radishes and onions and leeks for the workmen, and if I rightly remember that which the interpreter said in reading to me this inscription, a sum of one thousand six hundred talents of silver was spent; and if this is so, how much besides is likely to have been expended upon the iron with which they worked, and upon bread and clothing for the workmen, seeing that they were building the works for the time which has been mentioned and were occupied for no small time besides, as I suppose, in the cutting and bringing of the stones and in working at the excavation under the ground? Cheops moreover came, they said, to such a pitch of wickedness, that being in want of money he caused his own daughter to sit in the stews, and ordered her to obtain from those who came a certain amount of money (how much it was they did not tell me): and she not only obtained the sum appointed by her father, but also she formed a design for herself privately to leave behind her a memorial, and she requested each man who came in to give her one stone upon her building: and of these stones, they told me, the pyramid was built which stands in front of the great pyramid in the middle of the three, each side being one hundred and fifty feet in length."

Original research[edit]

I have removed the original research once again. Although I applaud the attempt at compromise by MinisterForBadTimes, the rules concerning WP:OR are strict and for very good reason. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It is also not a democracy. There is no provision that allows the inclusion of original research based on any type of compromise. And the rule applies to history as well as the sciences as per Mr. Wales' statement here: [1].

The OR violations are these:

1.The improper use of a primary source. The foundation of this edit is a primary source. The rule states:

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

The edit constitutes an interpretation not backed by any secondary source. The secondary sources provided only allude to the primary—they in no way endorse the statement.

2. The use of an original translation where a published one exists. The rule is clear: "Where English translations of non-English material are unavailable, Wikipedia editors may supply their own." Since there is a translation published by tertullian.org which can be found here: [2], any original translation is not allowed.

This is enough to close the matter right here. But since I ordered the sources and have taken a careful look at them, I'll post my findings in the following section. My reason for doing this is to clearly separate and differentiate the two discussions.

Fehling can't be considered a serious researcher...[edit]

The quote by Fehling that ""there is not the slightest bit of history behind the whole story" about the claim of Herodotus that Pharaoh Sesostris campaigned in Europe, and that he left a colony in Colchia" is garbage and should be removed. This is a direct attack on Herodotus that is not gratuitous 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:F012:2F2F:8C95:7673 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, he's a known historian and most definitely a Reliable Source ... there many problems with Herodotus' writings - if you are some sort of weird "fan boy" defending everything he said, well, that's not good enough.50.111.22.143 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove the map publicated. It is fake.[edit]

I stumbled across the following comment at the wrong place (the Media Viewer discussion page), so I'm just copying it without any judgement of merit. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to contribute to the discussion. Frlara (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove urgently the map considered as the map of Herodotus because it is fake and is manipulated. Original map of Herodotus contain the world "Illyria" in it that is erased by the map you are publishing on wikipedia. If you want to be serious and not be kidding with the history of Europian nations then remove this fake map and replace it with the original map of Herodotus which contain name "Illyrians" on it. Why you manipulate ancient maps and erase name Illyrian from them? Just because you are interested on creating an identity for greeks? Shame on you. History is not told right with manipulations. Tell the history of the world as it is and give to albanians their rights and stop censuring the truth about illyrians and albanians just because you are interested on protecting the greeks and their false identity. Check your sources and and correct them according to the certified atlas maps of the [[National Library of Scotland}} and here is the link of original map of Herodotus https://maps.nls.uk/view/101105572 79.106.126.218 16:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The map is not "fake." This commenter is just promoting a nationalist agenda. He or she seems to just be angry that the map happens to omit the country that he or she comes from, but the purpose of the map is not to list every single country that existed at the time, but rather to show how much of the world Herodotus and the Greeks knew. Since the map fulfills that purpose, it does not really matter that it does not attempt to list the names of every land that the Greeks knew of.
It is also worth noting that the commenter seems to be very confused about what the map is showing and seems to think this is a copy of an actual map drawn by Herodotus himself. It is not. If Herodotus ever drew a map of the world, that map has not survived. Instead, this map is a modern creation showing the world Herodotus describes in his book The Histories. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I noticed the corresponding map in in Wikimedia is much better than the wikipedia's one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Herodotus_World_Map.jpg vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Herodotus_world_map-en.svg The Wikimedia one is similar to the one in the times survey from 1920 mentioned above (https://maps.nls.uk/view/101105572). Any possibility of using the Wikimedia one as well? It seems so much more complete. Wouldn't know how to do this myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.28.235 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Defining "modern"[edit]

he Histories were occasionally criticized in antiquity,[c] but modern historians and philosophers generally take a positive view.[43] <-- The reference is from 1986. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredrebellious (talkcontribs) 20:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Theredrebellious: What exactly is your point? 1986 is "modern." World history is usually divided into three eras: "Antiquity" or "Ancient Times" refers to everything that happened from the time of the earliest written records in the late fifth millennium BC until the decline of the West Roman Empire in the 400s AD. The "Middle Ages" refers to everything from the mid-400s to the beginning of the Renaissance in the mid-1400s. The term "Modern Era" or "Modernity" refers to everything that has happened since the beginning of the Renaissance (c. 1450 AD). Some authors distinguish between the "Early Modern Era," which is from c. 1450 to c. 1750 and the "Modern Era," which is from c. 1750 to the present day. Compared to the roughly 6,000 years of recorded history, or even the approximately 2,449 years that have passed since Herodotus wrote his Histories, the thirty-two years that have passed since 1986 are not even a drop in the bucket. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Unless you have other RS's that state modern opinion has changed since 1986, then the article must assume that that is still the prevailing view. Please note that doesn't mean historians have not found fault or regard him as reliable (he often is not) - but they are observing his writings as imperfect but earnest.50.111.22.143 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You know this is a joke, right?[edit]

Currently this page includes:

"According to Lucian, Herodotus took his finished work straight from Anatolia to the Olympic Games and read the entire Histories to the assembled spectators in one sitting, receiving rapturous applause at the end of it."

You know Lucian was joking right? He wasn't a historian... he wrote 'True History' a story about people going to the moon and meaning moon-men... need I say more? 174.3.228.242 (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)