User talk:147.219.197.103

Toga

Please read articles with care before you consider changing content. From the Toga article:

"In Roman historical tradition, it is said to have been the favored dress of Romulus, Rome's founder; it was also thought to have originally been worn by both sexes, and by the citizen-military."

There is no basis for argument or contradiction in any of this, and no need to refer readers to other Wikipedia articles. Haploidavey (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

First, I think it is inaccurate to say a detail that comes from Late Antique Historiography (250-650 CE) comes merely from "Roman historical tradition," since the Late Antique is 500+ years removed from the time of which it speaks. Secondly, you say without any proof that I didn't take care in reading the article, and there's no need to refer the reader to another Wiki article. Shouldn't the reader know that the idea of women wearing togas is just "scholarly lore invented in Late Antiquity", and not really "historical" or "tradition" in any sense? The editors of the Stola wiki editors seem to think so. 147.219.197.103 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to correct you there. One editor of the Stola article seems to think so: User:Modorum musicorum has declared an interest as a translator and copy-editor of various articles relating to women's clothing in ancient Rome, and has effectively rewritten the Stola article, contributing 75% of its current content, based on a single source; please see their talk page and links to various articles whose topics are covered or part covered by this publication;

Radicke, Jan: Roman Women's Dress: Literary Sources, Terminology, and Historical Development, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711554.

Please also see Wikipedia's rules and policies on reliable sources, WP:verifiability and conflict of interest. Radicke's views are meticulously developed but Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent notable majority viewpoints and significant minority viewpoints. The source in question is a fairly recent publication from a highly reputable scholarly publisher but it has not yet been peer-reviewed. Until it is, it can't be used in the article content to contradict other opinions, no matter how convincing it might be to you or me - yes, I find it very convincing for the most part; but our own (personal) opinions and convictions simply don't count for anything on Wikipedia. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

---