Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Era convention again

Didn't WP:ERA used to say that you were supposed to stick with the era convention used at the time of the article's creation unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors? The italicized part still stands, but if there's no preference for the convention used at the time of creation, I don't understand why I've had to spill so much of my blood over keeping all the Valerii Flacci from the 1st century BC in the same convention as the List of Roman consuls and all the biographical articles that use consular year as a disambiguator. And if there is no such preference, then does the question become a pointless battle of wills? Today I ask because someone with the brazen moniker CrusaderForCommonEra changed the convention in Catullus 16 and Tyranny of small decisions. What should happen? PMA? Anyone? Cynwolfe (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think mos maiorum is pretty strong on this point, and dictates that the era convention should never be changed without (1) a really compelling reason that overrides the fact that in general we've only won peace by subjecting this to a mechanical principle (keep what's there); (2) a strong consensus in discussion approving the massive "substantiality" of the reason. Wareh (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If he or she has nothing better to do, and the problem continues, you could ask an admin to suspend the person's editing privileges, or at least warn the user about that as a future possibility. This kind of edit-warring serves no purpose, and does a disservice to all of the other editors who've worked so hard on these articles. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The user's actions have as far as I know not risen to the level of edit warring, but the choice of user name certainly seems like a declaration of such. (But why advertise it?) As I've said before, I don't care that much about the issue per se, but I often find that when people decide to change it, they have no reason that serves the content of the article at hand. And I want to do my part to uphold whatever's supposed to happen. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And we should try to discourage all kinds of crusaders; the auctoritas of the present custom is an ArbCom case which warned a member of each crusade. I find both sides obnoxious; in practice I would use AD and BC (except I think on Judaica articles, which I am unlikely to write) in order to communicate; but I will revert any edit made solely to switch styles in either direction. But our subject has not edited since Cynwolfe's message; perhaps he is considering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Christianity in classical sources

I know there are some project members who are interested in topics such as "Historicity of Jesus" and the nature of the evidence in classical texts, so I just wanted to make sure these members knew about the existence of the following articles, to which I've now added the project template: Suetonius on Christ, Tacitus on Christ, and Lucian of Samosata on Jesus. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The last could use a retitle; it is almost entirely the Death of Peregrinus and is testimony about second-century Christians. It is less relevant to Jesus debates than, say, Ignatius of Antioch, who is contemporary, if not older than, Lucian's sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had some concerns about the material and approach without delving into it too closely — mainly to do with proportion and emphasis. A few months ago, there was a serious problem at Suetonius: see this version, which I (very hastily and without time for meaningful improvement) edited to its present form, more or less. That must've diverted material to the relatively new Suetonius on Christ. I also made this edit to Lucian, again because of undue emphasis given to the topic Lucian of Samosata on Jesus by placing it at the top of Lucian's own article. The user involved with both these was also behind very recent dubious edits ([1] [2] [3] [4]) to the introductory section of Roman Empire. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the kind of exchange that makes this project an ongoing worry. The mentioned contributor is now in some danger of becoming a target for the gangland-style attacks that sometimes emanate from this talk page. A banned editor might deserve to be singled out in this way (in fact I can think of one particular banned editor who never attracted any negative comments here until after he was banned) but active contributors are entitled to a presumption of innocence. McZeus (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Innocent of what? If I thought the editor should be reported, I would've done that. The purpose of this project is to make sure that topics pertaining to ancient Greece and Rome are presented in a manner consistent with WP policy. Perhaps I was wrong to point out that all these concerns had pointed in a particular direction, but I perceived a pattern of pulling out one relatively minor aspect of an author or topic in a way that is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The edit summaries associated with these edits don't attract attention (they frequently imply that only a link or reference has been added), and I overlooked some of them for a while for that reason. If it was appropriate for the main article on Suetonius to place his life and works only after a section of equal length on his usefulness in establishing the historicity of Jesus, then I withdraw my objections, and you can go change it back, McZeus. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We have nickname for that practice, which McZeus should know; he's cited it often enough, and rarely so justifiably: WP:COATRACK. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

COATRACK only covers a part of the banned user's history as a propagandist or lifestyle advocate for boy love. And on that theme, to do justice to Cynwolfe, she is largely responsible for rewriting some key articles that were monstered by him, which gives contributors like me new confidence to work on other associated or linked articles. McZeus (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to take a break to work on non-WP things, but I didn't want to leave this hanging. I don't like the implication that the contributions I listed above are somehow categorically like those of the banned user. First you accuse me, McZeus, of "targeting" a user, and then you paint the user with the same brush as your banned editor. I see the active user's contributions overall as notable content that can be edited to correct misconceptions or misplaced priorities (hence my alert here), not something that merits even a block, let alone a ban. It's insulting to the active user to associate him with the kind of activity that got the other user banned. (And this "banned user" to whom you keep referring, McZeus, last edited more than a year ago. Let it go.) Perhaps if these bizarre notions of "canvassing" weren't in place ("if someone's up to something deleterious to content, please don't discuss it openly because as a group you might be more effective in correcting it!"), the problems that led to the ban could've been pointed out sooner to this and other relevant projects, and the situation could've been addressed before so many articles were permeated by an inappropriate agenda. If we aren't allowed to state clearly what we perceive as the problem, how can it be addressed? Others might disagree in a given situation that it even is a problem. That's how consensus is sought. The only comparison between these two situations is that multiple articles are affected, and so comments on individual talk pages may not give a full picture. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The rule against canvassing stops vigilantes hanging strange fruit from the trees. That might seem a silly rule if you are one of the vigilantes but it's an important rule for the strange fruit, not all of whom are public enemies. People like the banned user can only be stopped by quietly following his edits and then reporting him to the proper 'authorities'. It's true that people don't always do this - I myself am guilty of living in my own little WP box and just shutting out the disagreeable noises. If there is a problem with an article, you are supposed to ask others to have a look at it in such a way as not to invite prejudice. They can form their own opinions and do their own follow-up work on any suspect contributors. Incidentally, banning has many problems associated with it (e.g. banned users reinvent themselves and simply continue as usual) but at least it allows the community to talk openly about a user and the problems he/she has created. Unfortunately, that debate can sometimes get shouted down, which only keeps the issue festering. Why haven't I let go? I just gave you the answer. McZeus (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We can probably agree to disagree about the nuances of "inviting prejudice" if necessary; any compassionate human being will remember that there could be a good-faith person on the other side who believes that mucking up the encyclopedia is God's work. The fact is that Wikipedia is an experiment in communal editing on a vast scale, with flare-ups of mob prejudice and even bigger flare-ups of mob indifference. So we try to keep a smaller community to help each other make sense of, and simply give a darn about, the ongoing challenges in the way of improving treatment of the ancient world. If we end up being knee-jerk vigilantes ganging up and lynching, we'll have done wrong. I don't think Cynwolfe's pointing out a pattern of distorting articles away from their natural emphasis is a step in that direction. Have some faith that we can go out and charitably, kindly, appropriately, and without prejudice keep helping make adjustments and interventions in the right direction. WP:AGF is one of the core Wikipedia principles, and here it simply means, I think, crediting each other with the right motives towards each other and towards strangers. I understand and take seriously your concern that editors are biased by allegiance to causes taken up by editors known to them & respected by them. But, on the other hand, it's only fair to ask that there be a real example of untoward bullying of this Ret.Prof before you call us all a bunch of bullies. Wareh (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I feel I owe the user an apology, since I had meant to call attention to the pattern of edits and in particular the group of three articles, which I lack the expertise or desire to edit, in the hope that others would watch them and help. I certainly have no intention of stalking the user quietly or otherwise to gather evidence for a tribunal, because I see no grounds for that. The person seems genial and dedicated. What I see is content that needs proportional shaping and (as has been pointed out elsewhere) possible correcting. That it comes from a single editor simply suggests that there's a frame of reference that needs to be balanced. I thought it would be canvassing if I singled out a small group of editors, as I wanted to, and asked them to consider working on the material. My selection would've been based on my judgment of who would've been good for the task, so I thought that would be considered non-neutral. I'm feeling very off my game, so it's probably good I'm trying to take a break. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing is an ongoing problem with this project and the motives have not always been benign. Those who don't feel it is a problem are those who haven't been on the receiving end of it yet. I think it is appropriate to call attention to it and I will continue to do so, especially since even Wareh seems to have a blind spot in relation to it. If the warnings don't work, then I'll make a formal complaint. Cynwolfe knows I value her contributions and I am not going to preface all my criticism with a glowing review of her work here. McZeus (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS is specific in approving posts to a netural venue, such as a WikiProject; if Cynwolfe has gotten agreement, it is because she has expressed a commonplace, such as Wikiguidelines ought to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you stuck your nose out at this point because you are the main source of my concern, not Cynwolfe. She is merely responding to the environment you have created around yourself here. The attempt to prejudice people you are inviting into a discussion is the behaviour I object to and I think it comes under Wikipedia:Canvassing#campaigning. It is how you operate on a quite regular basis and it needs to be checked. McZeus (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What is the basis for this personal attack? I haven't edited a user talk page for two weeks; I haven't asked for an opinion (and WP:3O ain't canvassing) since September. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I second that 'huh.' When I post what I see as a content problem here, it's because I want to gather opinions toward consensus. If I just wanted to impose my own opinion, I would take the devious route of hunting the 'opposition' and trying to shut them down through wikilawyering rather than addressing content issues as a community. I certainly wouldn't come here, where lurk editors of high principle and acumen. It's insulting to suggest that editors can't form their own opinions, regardless of how much attitude may permeate the outlining of the issue. And it's insulting to imply that any editor comes here expecting to be agreed with; such a person would be a fool, and soon relieved of his illusions. I expect that Wareh may temper or undermine my assertions. I expect PMA to rap my knuckles with a ruler if I say something dumb. His is only one voice here (and once again I'm amused and baffled when people think he and I always agree), but contributions like this surely enhance the credibility of this project and WP in general. There may be WP circles, for all I know, where an individual has a clique that mindlessly seconds all his motions. That would not be the Greece and Rome project. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I dug these two comments up from the archives where I am the target. First Pmanderson's invitation to join a discussion with me under my username Amphitryoniades (italics mine - oh and you misspelt the name but I know that was an accident):

And the original Amphitroniades (I would prefer to think he is merely presenting himslef as Iphicles ;->) is -er- expressing himself at length on Talk:Solon. A third voice would be welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Next my invitation to a different discussion and Pmanderson's response:

Discussion here for those interested. Thanks.McZeus (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be going downhill; the article has now been tagged with only marginally justified tags, which are an admitted part of an AfD campaign. (The article has already survived AfD once, and the changes since then are small - and by me in general improvements.)

More attention would be helpful.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Those were intended to prejudice opinion against me and against my arguments. Project loyalties make such provocations a real problem. I haven't made any formal complaints. In fact I've never made any formal complaints about anyone so far at WP because I can accept a bit of rough and tumble as part of the debating process but that will change if the provocations continue, whether the target is me or someone else. McZeus (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and a few more. Here is Cynwolfe's blast on the bugle to rescue Freedom of Speech from yours truly, during a debate about the future of an article:

This is urgent. If you think you aren't interested in the topic itself, please take time to check out this discussion and leave a comment. I was shocked to see that a fairly well-developed, well-sourced article is about to be virtually deleted. (If anyone remembers the recent deletion of the entire section "Literary Works" in Julius Caesar, the same forces seem to be at work.) The article in question needs thoughtful editing, but it's far from the worst thing I've seen under the G&R aegis. It's vitally important that editors without an agenda weigh in. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and here is someone else (Taivo) who had problems with Pmanderson's impartiality here—this was in the never-to-be-forgotten attack by the project on the linguists, where I briefly tried to act as a mediator (when will I ever grow up?)

This has now devolved to the point where one of our unhelpful colleagues has declared that we shouldn't use "conjugation" either. Suggestions? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This last request is based on a misreading of my comment. No such declaration has been made. The comment was made concerning the word "screeve" used in Kartvelian linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway that's enough for now. McZeus (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it's your project and I'm not even a member. So do as you please. McZeus (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought of you as a de facto member of the project, and one who is active and valued. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I watch this page because I work on articles within the scope of the project but I'm not a member even in a de fact sense. I shouldn't be telling you how to run your project but project members have descended on me several times like a bunch of wild men from the hills and I reserve the right to descend on you in return when the occasion seems right. We should be able to avoid each other peacefully and I'll be making more efforts in that direction in future. No hard feelings in the meantime. McZeus (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Greek mythology" vs. "Greek Religion"

In many, if not most, of the article on ancient Greek deities, the opening sentence is usually "X was the god/goddess of Y in Greek mythology". To me, this has a rather youthful, popular culture ring to it. Wouldn't it be more correct to say "ancient Greek religion" or something like that? Sure we all learn about the Greek gods in the context of Greek mythology when we are growing up, but religion to me sounds more grown up as well as encyclopedic. Thoughts? Athenean (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's plenty grown-up and encyclopedic to recognize mythology as more than a subset of religion, but Athenean does have a point. Let me put my opinion this way: the sentence in the lead of Ares (simply that Ares is the Greek god of x) is better than that in Athena (which tags on the "in Greek mythology" to a list of domains of significance that are not only or strictly mythological possibilities). On the other hand, the article structure of Athena on this point (clearly distinguished sections for Athena in myth and in cult) is better than the structure of Ares (there is treatment of Ares as figure in myth and literature, but it is not clearly organized and presented as a single subject). In any case, I do think it would be dangerous to look for a substitute catch-all phrase to replace "in Greek mythology"; we should be wary of presenting myths as religious beliefs, since they have plenty of meaning outside of religion. (I am not prepared to classify Ovid's Heroides as a religious text.) Wareh (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the lead sentence, I think the version "Greek god of X" is ideal, as it is factually unassailable and avoids the whole myth vs. religion issue. Athenean (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This has severe problems.

If Greek religion means anything (setting aside for this discussion the Greek Orthodox Church), it means cultic practice. But a large number of divinities show up in myths who have no cult, or hardly any: Hades, Ares, Helios... To add to the difficulties, these are generally the ones who can be called "of Y", for one particular Y; what was Poseidon the god of? Depends on which cult and epithet you mean, doesn't it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My attempted solution to this is usually a phrase along the lines of "In [[Religion in ancient Greece|ancient Greek religion]] and [[Greek mythology|myth]]." I encounter this more often with Roman subject matter, where I would agree strongly with Athenean: very often, figures without any narratives or "mythology" at all, and known only as deities invoked for a particular function, or as divine personifications that were part of Imperial cult, will be described as (for example) "a goddess of birth in Roman mythology." If the figure has no mythology per se, I correct that to "in [[Religion in ancient Rome|ancient Roman religion]]."

On the other hand, what I would point out to those primarily interested in ancient religion is the importance of mythology as a subject of later literature and art. Since both Greek mythology and Roman mythology are described in their articles as the imaginative use of myth in later Western culture as well as the narratives of ancient Greece and Rome, articles on a figure like Dionysus or Diana should include an overview of the classical tradition too — but not in the form of mere lists. Some deities have a distinctive character or attract aesthetic or thematic interest at a later period, like Persephone among the Pre-Raphaelites and poets such as Swinburne. Interest among artists and writers of a particular period is sometimes sparked by recent work of mythographers or archaeologists. I'd like to see more articles include "classical tradition" sections for deities who have that kind of Nachleben. Some figures, such as Orpheus, play a particularly rich role in the reception of classical myth. (I dashed off a new intro to Orpheus, perhaps carelessly, because I felt that the intro kept missing the forest for the trees.) Anyway, just thoughts that have come to me as I rewrote Pluto (mythology) when questions were raised about its raison d'être. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

G. J. Toomer

I just created a new article titled G. J. Toomer. Quite a large number of articles link to it, but it's very stubby. Do what you can to improve it. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Roman law

A user without a named account has posed a good question at Talk:Roman law#Roman Law Today. Glancing at the edit history, the article seems to have been edited in recent months by a host of IPs and editors, but I don't know whether anyone in particular is watching it actively. Just thought I'd bring it to the attention of the project. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Orpheus and Dionysus

I wasn't really involved in earlier discussions on how to handle the Thracian aspects of Orpheus and Dionysus, though I read them and commented a little. There's current activity on these two articles, and I want to make sure that the talk-page consensus is preserved, so I'm hoping those who are better informed about the issues will be able to look into this. I believe it had to do with undue weight. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

π (pi)

The usage of Π is under discussion, see Talk:Pi. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Help Requested at Gospel of Matthew

Does anyone have the time to review the ongoing dispute at this (important) article? The issues can be found at Talk:Gospel of Matthew. I have tried to foster a brief presentation of the issues at the bottom of the talk page in a way that hopefully makes the issues clear. Outside help, comment, and opinions would be highly salutary. Thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Roman naming note

Hey, I saw something I hadn't seen on a Roman biography before, and wondered whether someone could explain it to me. It was the following note at the top of the article on the emperor Titus:

{{ Roman name | praenomen = Titus | nomen = Flavius | cognomen = Vespasianus | agnomen = | nameused = Titus }} It's a template:

{{ Roman name | praenomen = Titus | nomen = Flavius | cognomen = Vespasianus | agnomen = | nameused = Titus }}

I'm somewhat unclear what its purpose is. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I'm sure it's an attempt to explain why Titus Flavius Vespasianus would be referred to as Titus when his father, also named Titus Flavius Vespasianus, is referred to as Vespasian and his brother, Titus Flavius Domitianus, is referred to as Domitian. But I think it's easier to explain that by writing it out than by using a template, and I don't see any other valid uses for the template. Even though there are other instances where it could be used the same way, in each case it's going to be more confusing or distracting than simply explaining the nomenclature in the body of the article. P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I too thought it may have been occasioned by the oddity of "Titus". I glanced over the talk page to see whether there was any back-and-forth, thinking this was a response to somebody insisting "Titus" couldn't be right. Didn't see anything. To me the explanation in the first paragraph is sufficient. I wondered whether it was a new thing, or whether there was a consensus for its use. I saw nothing about it at WP:ROMANS, but the editor most responsible for drafting that guideline is at present under an aquae et ignis interdictio. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Other uses of the template. Wareh (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You don't have an opinion on whether it's useful/redundant? I think I'd rather see this sort of thing in a biographical infobox. I recognize, however, that the editors I admire and most respect dislike infoboxes, which are chiefly a bother when the info in them is contested, but I guess the part of my life spent as a journalist accustomed me to "quick look" graphics. I digress. I don't have strong feelings about this, but I tend to agree with what P Aculeius said, and would like to hear any and all views. If the template is good practice, its proper use should be described at WP:ROMANS, I'd think. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No I don't hold a strong opinion. I haven't really examined this in the context of how the article does or does not present sufficient clarity on this often confusing issue. I have worked a little on Roman name disambiguation, and it does seem an area that requires a lot of work to bring up to where everything is laid out systematically and clearly, while retaining relevance for the most likely uses (finding the famous Romans while ignoring the obscure ones).

These days, it seems that there is a big audience for mining the data contained in the encyclopedia's infoboxes, templates, etc. For example, we now see many extramural efforts to use this data in order to visualize the patterns in the encyclopedia's coverage. If names and family relationships can be encoded in some way to facilitate this, that would be a positive. An infobox could certainly aspire to contain much more information than a template of this kind. Wareh (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A biographical infobox for a Roman male could feature nomenclature (which might include parentage), dates or floruit, birthplace, social rank (senator, equestrian, nobilis, patrician, plebeian, novus homo, freedman), magistracies, priesthoods, wives, children. An image slot for those rare instances when there's a portrait tradition, with caption info that permits of "Neoclassical depiction of …" . Having brainstormed this far, I find myself weary at the prospect, I confess, of doing this even for the coupla dozen bios I've done. So I shall slink back lazily. However, I'd be interested in learning more about what you mean about the extramural efforts, if you have something in particular in mind that you could link to. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The latest visualization I've seen (not the best one - I find it quite inane) is this one. Wareh (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to seem ungrateful for this link, but I've been trying to deal with my willingness to sit and watch the little dots spreading, since I no longer dare turn on my iTunes visualizer. It reminds me of my freshman geology prof taking us on a tour of geologic time, "and at midnight, we would be here," sorta like this. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a bigger collection of Wikipedia visualizations. Along the lines of your geologic time perspective, there's this seminal 1968 film. Wareh (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's being used on Vespasian and the two Bruti. Vespasian ain't a Roman name. A well-intentioned idea, which I have put up for deletion here; come and disagree with me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the motion to delete it as it appears on only a small number of the articles and is not really that relevant in my honest opinion. Dalek (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Daunted by the amount of verbiage on the page describing the process of template deletion, I was too lazy to determine what happens next. Four people have expressed an opinion (if you wish to do so, I'll repeat the link here), and all four say the same thing. Is it the case that discussion is kept open for a certain amount of time, and then an uninvolved admin would take action? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Can someone join and see this talk page on Itinerarium Romanum Serbiae page? It is about birth place of 17 Roman Emperors. Any good advice is useful, and if the advisory bring some good source... We will all love him/her! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Athens invented theatre

Now, I know that when people come here with a question like this, it's usually because something ugly's been happening on an article's talk page, but this notice is intended to forestall that.

In History of theatre, the statement has been made (more or less) that Athens invented theatre; it has sources that use precisely this language. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that them's fightin' words. Not only does it elicit the nationalist impulse to argue that if Athenian theatre was rooted in the rites of Dionysus, it was Thracian (shades of Orpheus), but even though it's under a Western header my feeling is that the claim should be delimited somehow because the article has a global perspective. Anyone who has something reasonable to say, with a good source that will give us a less contentious way to express the priority of Athens in the Western tradition, is invited to the talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be flirting with Occidentalism. ;-> Athenian theatre is older than Indian or Chinese theatre; every so often, the Europeans did do things first. There have been western idiots beyond number; but a stopped clock is right twice a day. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But I see the actual issue is a strong and tendentious diffusionist, which claims that Athens must have inspired all theatre, even Kalidasa and Peking opera. That's even sillier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to note that by Western tradition Athenian theatre is accorded such first place status, but that this evaluation has been considerably nuanced by a large body of more recent scholarship. Eusebeus (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping to work out a statement not quite so bald as "Athens invented theatre," along the lines of what Eusebeus says, and in keeping with what PMA outlines. I was thinking along the lines of "The Western tradition of theatre begins in Classical Athens" or "The earliest form of theatre appears in Classical Athens" or "Classical Athens created the first fully developed theatre" — something that both asserts the chronological priority of Athens, and emphasizes that while elements of theatre might be found before that, it's in Classical Athens that they first coalesce into the recognizable art form "theatre," without claiming that Athens gave birth to later theatre universally. (Not to muddy the waters, but in my day we were taught that Greek theatre had very little to do directly with Shakespeare, whose classical models were Roman comedy and Seneca. So the whole genealogical approach can become of questionable value, or at least not very illuminating, unless you're talking about reception in the manner of Racine's.) The article talk page could probably use some more perspectives in order to arrive at a clear consensus. As I've said there, to me this is a difference between asserting that "Painting was invented in southern France" and "The oldest known paintings are at the Grotte Chauvet in France," the latter being what the History of painting article says. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What seems hopelessly ignorant to me at History of theatre is that the footnote speaks of fifth-century Athens and surviving dramatic works. What does that have to do with the origins of any kind of drama? The tradition of Aeschylus' introduction of a second actor could justify it, I guess, but I think Thespis' use of one role-playing actor with a chorus in sixth-century Athens under Pisistratus is more commonly considered to be Athens' claim to be the site of the appearance of drama's basic element (not an uncontested claim: as Wikipedia says here, though not on the basis of a good source, "Thespis's true contribution to drama is unclear at best"). It can also be said that Athens' precocity in drama is reflected in its early theaters (buildings) as permanent structures whose evidence remains. But I hope any statement of the importance of what happened at Athens (before any of the surviving literature: the author of our article probably only meant to say that "the books of plays in my library begin with Persians") will be accompanied by some reference to the importance placed in our Greek sources for the non-Athenian precursor threads: e.g. Arion, Adrastus (his cult at Sicyon, where Themistius says tragedy was invented), and (if we're talking about comedy, which I guess we're not) Epicharmus.

Perhaps I can sum up for practical purposes and suggest that the abbreviated factoid for a general article like this might be, that an influential ancient story with some apparent truth to it is that Thespis in Pisistratus' Athens is where to draw the line between the various precursors in Greek poetry and what we can really be tempted to call "drama." With the further developments in fifth-century Athens, the addition of a second actor and the production of so many plays that survived for readers in significant numbers all the way to today, we have the beginning of our literary tradition of drama (nothing to do with the "invention of theater"). Wareh (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there you go, additional important distinctions. Would it be all right if I copied this discussion to the talk page of the article in question? Or would the individual editors here prefer either to make their own comments, or not to go on record there? I say this because I've tagged the word "invent" as dubious, but it keeps getting deleted. I think it's clear that the word "invent" is a serious sticking point for some editors, not just me. The discussion, let me also note for those who are wary of getting involved, is civil and respectful. Just lengthy. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You may certainly disseminate these comments; they are public after all! Wareh (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Have done. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Togodumnus - check references

Could someone with some knowledge of Greek or in possession of Miles Russell's Bloodline: the Celtic Kings of Roman Britain possibly check some recent edits on Togodumnus? The section "Arguments for identification", citing Russell (but only for one statement), claims that Cassius Dio says pretty much the opposite of what he appears to say, and I would be very interested to know if this is a reasonable interpretation, or if, as I suspect, the material is being bent quite severely to permit identifying Togodumnus with his near-contemporary near-namesake Cogidubnus.

Togodumnus was a British ruler at the time of the Roman conquest of Britain in AD 43. Dio (60.20) is translated by Carey as saying: "Plautius, accordingly, had a deal of trouble in searching them out; but when at last he did find them, he first defeated Caratacus and then Togodumnus, the sons of Cynobellinus, who was dead... After the flight of these kings he gained by capitulation a part of the Bodunni..." This is reinterpreted as meaning that Togodumnus led a contingent of Britons on the Roman side, fighting against his brother Caratacus.

Then (60.21), it is claimed that Dio/Cary's "Shortly afterwards Togodumnus perished, but the Britons, so far from yielding, united all the more firmly to avenge his death. Because of this fact and because of the difficulties he had encountered at the Thames, Plautius became afraid, and instead of advancing any farther, proceeded to guard what he had already won, and sent for Claudius." can be read that Togodumnus did not die, and that previously neutral Britons rallied to him on the Roman side.

I don't know Greek, and I am aware that translation is not an exact science, but I find it difficult to believe the same material is capable of such radically different interpretation. Perhaps someone better informed could take a look at it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Obscure Gallic kings are more my thing than British ones. What you lack, however, is not another editor's translation of the Greek, but modern scholarship that interprets the passage in the context of what else is known, including comparing other literary sources and any archaeology such as coins. Although translation in my view is not inherently OR, taking an accurately translated passage of Dio (or any other ancient writer) at face value can indeed be OR, as well as rash. I'm a big fan of John Creighton on the British kings of this period; he has something on Togodumnus here. See also the venerable David Braund, who has done a great deal of work on Rome's client kings in general, here. Mattingly confronts Dio's possible misinterpretation here. See also Collingwood & Myres here. Good luck. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't read the Creighton book in my jurisdiction, but I was impressed by his Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain. Of your other links, only Mattingly deals with the possible identification of Togodumnus with C/Togidubnus, and he does so by arguing that Dio was mistaken to report Togodumnus's death - essentially what is conceded in the previous paragraph in the article, "Cunliffe's interpretation would appear to imply an error in Dio's Roman History or in its transmission" - not that Dio can be interpreted to read that he didn't die at that point. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I loved Coins and Power. I was in a hurry when I dashed that off, and unfortunately Creighton doesn't have much to say at all about T. — just that he died in the battle. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

[After edit conflict.] I feel your pain. Maybe the right thing to do here is to think about how various principles like WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE and WP:COI add up here. User:Avebury123, whether actually Miles Russell or not (though an author who writes 872 words in response to his one negative amazon.co.uk review could be suspected...), is a single-purpose account that doesn't visit talk pages and focuses exclusively on Miles Russell and Bournemouth University archeology, even in articles on films[5][6] and Eurovision songs (!).[7] Based on that alone, one might be on firm ground to revert the big Togodumnus rewrite until established editors unaffiliated with Russell agree on how to use the material. Without reviews and articles showing the embrace of Russell's interpretation of Dio, "Close examination of Dio's text infact demonstrates that Togodumnus does not appear to have died" flunks WP:NPOV. I'd think the "big rewrite edit" could simply be replaced with a sentence saying Russell argues an interpretation of Dio as saying Togodumnus did not in fact die, with the footnote to the pp. 100-112 of his book. If any other scholar accepts this interpretation of Dio in print, it could be revisited. Wareh (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Russell, if he's continuing to argue the 9th legion was destroyed in Britain in 117 despite the evidence that it existed elsewhere at a later date, is not a reliable source. The interpretation that Togodumnus didn't die at the Thames and is the same person as C/Togidubnus should probably be cited to John Hind, who Mattingly credits with convincingly developing the idea. However I can't see Mattingly's bibliography so I don't know what "Hind 2007" refers to, so I'll have to rewrite it citing Mattingly for the time being.

My own interpretation is that the Romans are highly unlikely to invade in support of Verica, restore his south-coast kingdom and conquer the rival south-east kingdom, then give the restored south-coast kingdom to a member of the defeated south-east dynasty. It doesn't make political sense. However, that's as much OR as anything. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hind (2007) might well be J.G.F Hind, "A. Plautius’ Campaign in Britain — An Alternative Reading of the Narrative in Cassius Dio", Britannia, 2007, 38, pp 93-106. If you've jstor access, here's a link - [8] but if you've not, leave a note here and I'll take a look some time over the next couple of days. Haploidavey (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I confirmed that Hind 2007 = this (by searching for "jgf 2007 * * * *" inside Mattingly). I'd also be glad to share access if needed. Wareh (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have JSTOR access I'm afraid, so I'll leave that in your capable hands. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Meilichios

This seems to me an exaggerated account even of Jane Harrison's version; and there must be other and more recent secondary treatments. Editing welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This article really ought to be titled Zeus Meilichios, and Harrison's explanation of the evolution of the figure should be clearly marked as her position, rather than being given as fact. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I noticed this once but wasn't motivated enough to tackle it. There's still a lot of frivolous, disorganized, or antiquated stuff on Greek and Roman deities, including articles with yawning gaps on significant figures such as Eros and Cupid (the latter being one that especially needs a full presentation of the tradition in later Western culture). In several articles, the views of Dumézil and successor Indo-Europeanists are given undue weight in framing the interpretation. Diana (mythology) is pervaded by the Neopagan and "Stregheria" belief systems, which should be relegated to their own sections, but I suspect fixing Diana would require a strenuous coordinated effort by the project. I've tried working through List of Roman deities alphabetically, and got to only Ca- before stalling. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Source and artist of painting of Alexander, Bucephalus and Diogenes?

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Source and artist of painting of Alexander, Bucephalus and Diogenes? -- Jeandré, 2011-06-02t17:38z

Wikipedia:Good article nominations currently has a backlog!

All editors willing and able to review articles are needed! Please contribute to the consensus of these articles by choosing 3 or more nominations to review in any of the catagories of interest to this project!

Please visit Wikipedia:Good article nominations now and begin! Thanks you!Amadscientist (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the Roman Empire an Iron Age culture?

There is currently a proposal to amend the first sentence of the article Roman Republic from this:

The Roman Republic was the period of the ancient Roman civilization characterized by a republican form of government

to this:

The Roman Republic was the historic Iron Age period of the ancient Roman civilization characterized by a republican form of government.

There is a concomitant effort to amend the first sentence of the article Roman Empire from this:

The Roman Empire (Latin: imperium romanum) was the post-Republican period of the ancient Roman civilization, characterised by an autocratic form of government and large territorial holdings in Europe and around the Mediterranean

to this:

The Roman Empire (Latin: imperium romanum) was the post-Republican Iron Age period of the ancient Roman civilization, characterised by an autocratic form of government and large territorial holdings in Europe and around the Mediterranean.

It has been my understanding that the Roman Republic and Empire are culturally considered a part of Classical antiquity and not discussed as typifying an Iron Age culture unless in the Archaic or Regal period. I suggested to the editor that after he met with opposition from three editors who regularly contribute in this subject area, he ought to bring the matter to the project here to seek a consensus before changing the first sentence in a pair of major articles. He declined, citing common sense. The ancient histories with which I'm familiar make a distinction, fair or not, between Iron Age cultures of western and northern Europe, and classical Mediterranean cultures; to me "Iron Age" is uninformative in the first sentence of either the Republic or Empire article, but I could be utterly mistaken. And so I bring this here for wiser heads. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The same editor has dome the same at Ancient Greece. He's relying on the concept of the "historic iron age", which has a footnote but not a cite, at the Iron Age article, and seems to be an invention of that article - I can't find any use of the term in this sense that doesn't derive from it on Google or Google scholar. It also makes the blanket claim that the Iron Age ends "around 500 AD", which is nonsensical as there were societies who had not even taken up the use of iron at that time, and is followed by the Middle Ages, which I thought only applied to Europe. I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that the Iron, Bronze and Stone Ages are classifications of prehistory, so once the historical record kicks in they become obsolete. This seems to me to be an example of the unfortunate tendency of Wikipedia to try and create absolute definitions and then over-apply them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies matters in all sorts of ways. Now if I could only get over that "the" in front of "ancient Roman civilization", which apparently sounds right to everyone else. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It does? As for the rest, I agree with Nicknack and Cynwolfe's observations and objections. Haploidavey (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Does what? The "that clarifies matters" or the "'the' doesn't sound right to me"? I had convinced myself that it was perhaps British. I've tried to change it before and was reverted twice. To me it's like saying "The American Old West was a period of the United States history." Cynwolfe (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ach. I meant that "the" seems redundant. To me. Haploidavey (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And you be British, so there goes that rationale. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I know of no technological change in late antiquity comparable to the change from bronze to iron; as far as I know, the "Iron Age" in both Italy and Greece normally refers to the late Archaic period, for which we have primarily archaeological evidence; has this editor come up with any source? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The attempt (also at Ancient Greece, as pointed out above) seems to have stopped abruptly, after initial vehemence. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The seems to me to assert that Rome was one of a class of entities called "civilizations". Toynbee would disagree; but he would certainly write of "the Greco-Roman civilization", like "the Sinic", "the Western" or "the Arabian" civilization. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To me, the appears unnecessary before ancient Roman civilization. However, I think it's a style choice and probably should be left alone unless and until the entire sentence is revised for some other reason. It's always a pain when somebody rewords your sentences just because they would have chosen to write them differently, and not in order to reduce or eliminate confusion. I think courtesy to other editors would mitigate in favour of leaving it. P Aculeius (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Greek love" again

I've removed Greek love from my watchlist. After spending countless hours in a good-faith effort to carry out the intentions of the last AfD, and crafting a frame to accommodate a chronological examination of how period-by-period the concept was modified in response to aesthetic and intellectual movements (some periods still being deficient), that work (not just mine; but that of other editors as well) is now being undone to a version before that last lengthy discussion, on the say-so of a single editor. This is bullshit, in my opinion, and an example of why humanities articles on WP are often so deficient: because of an unsophisticated understanding of the difference between a concept or an aesthetic and a "term". For sanity's sake, I am closing my eyes and letting it go. I hereby apologize to all those who participated in the AfD discussion, where I promised to watch the article and to develop it along the lines of the suggestions made there. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work, Cynwolfe. I hope you'll be reporting this abusive and vandalistic destruction of a controversial article to suit another editor's own PoV. When other editors treat good work like this, it completely destroys the coöperative aspect of Wikipedia and allows articles to become forums for a single viewpoint, instead of useful and reliable reference sources. P Aculeius (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm too angry about the no-discussion manner in which it was done to present such a case dispassionately, and am burned out from battling over a topic that has some aspects i find hard or distasteful to write about in the first place. I'm interested in both ancient sexuality and in the classical tradition (and hope to write an article on the latter, as some recent books have rearticulated the concept from the Gilbert Highet days), so this article brought together the two, especially with the 2010 book by Blanshard that both clearly described the concept (blithely deleted) and presented a framework within which other books and articles, such as Crompton's Byron and Greek Love, could be incorporated. There was still a long way to go, and sometimes in the process of building an article one adds material that when other sections are properly developed no longer seems proportionate or needed. Thanks for your bracing words, as I feel somewhat less insane now. Will go take a break. And hey, very nice to see you back. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Greek novel

In light of the article ancient Greek novel, I was wondering whether someone with knowledge and interest in that subject might want to address the claim made at Murasaki Shikibu that "She is best known as the author of The Tale of Genji, written in Japanese between about 1000 and 1008, which is the earliest known novel in human history." I really dislike these pointless "who came first" claims, but this one just seems counter-factual. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't even supported by the only accessible reference provided, so I just removed the sentence. Wareh (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't agree more: I was going to remove it myself, but Wareh burned me on it.Aldux (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, keep an eye on it, because apparently the removal has not won the unanimous support it might deserve. Wareh (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, added to my watchlist.Aldux (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As I say there, this is one of those cases I find interesting because it raises the question of what to do when sources of some kind (and sometimes even RS) support a claim that's demonstrably counter-factual. Ancient Greek novel, the Satyricon, and especially The Golden Ass are on the face of it evidence that there were earlier novels. The only way to refute that as evidence is to delete the first article, and forbid the use of the word "novel" to describe the second two. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Tale of Genji article itself disputes whether this work is a "novel," but isn't really clear about its priority if it is. Since the other discussion has devolved into the claim that ancient Greek novel appears to be a topic on wobbly legs that may constitute a hoax, I'm going to go do something more fun now, like laundry. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Caesar's/Roman Conquest of Britain

Just wondering if anyone knows why these articles are the current names rather than "... of GREAT Britain"? Generally, it's thought of as incorrect to refer to the island as just "Britain", which is normally reserved for the modern state of the United Kingdom. Could someone enlighten me? Is this a deliberate thing? Thanks in advance. JonChapple^Talk 08:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Britain" is simply an anglicization of the Latin Britannia, which is what the Romans called the province, and the place when Caesar arrived there (as in Catullus, Carmen 11, about that time). "Britain" is what it's called in the scholarship when it isn't called Britannia. As I look at the article on "Great Britain," I find that the sections Great Britain#Toponymy and Great Britain#Derivation of "Great" explain the ancient usage; it would be anachronistic to call it Great Britain in the context of classical antiquity. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks. JonChapple^Talk 19:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it might also be true that Britannia didn't always refer to the island as a geographic whole, but to a more restricted area in the south, though I wouldn't bank money on that. I could be entirely wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's very true. IIRC, Britannia only referred to England, and maybe parts of Wales. Scotland was known as Caledonia. JonChapple^Talk 21:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What is Greek Love?

Is this article going in the right direction or is it simply over weighted with mostly subjects only inspired by the subject? Is the Warren Cup and it's study really the best reference to Greek Love in ancient Rome? And if it is why can't the traditions of eros in ancient Greek be mentioned? The article could use other opinions they seem bent on reverting everything I've done...sevral different times. I think the article is unencyclopedic right now. What do others think?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem to believe that any opinions you don't share are unencyclopedic and ought to be removed. Your questions are all subjects that could be properly discussed in the talk page for this article (and not here), where a consensus might be formed if a majority of other editors agree with them. That's the proper way to obtain consensus and avoid edit warring. Some very good editors have spent a lot of time and effort trying to structure the article in the most encyclopedic fashion possible.

You and another editor seem determined to undermine those efforts either by changing the focus of the article, adding large new sections that are already comprehensively dealt with under other headings, and deleting the things you don't like under the rubric of "vandalism;" or else proposing that the entire article be deleted or changed into a simple definition with no substantial content.

If you seriously want to contribute to and improve the article, then instead of deleting or replacing content recently added by experienced editors who have spent a lot of time working on the subject, find additional relevant material that is not fully discussed elsewhere, and place it accordingly. Bear in mind that other editors may disagree with some additions, and be prepared to back them up or concede the point if the other editor's opinion is reasonable. If you want to reword something, or replace text or a source with something you think will be more helpful, accurate, or relevant, propose doing so and give your reasons on the talk page, since clearly this article is being carefully developed by other editors, who deserve the opportunity to consider and comment on significant changes before they're implemented.

Some editors have mentioned the development of "ownership issues" relating to this article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and editors don't have the right to prevent others from editing their work in order to improve articles. But collaboration also means respecting the work of others, and that means not making substantial changes to the content or focus of an article that's still being developed, without first discussing those changes with the editors working on the article, and arriving at a reasonable consensus. If you work within those parameters, your edits won't be rejected or reverted out of hand. P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

New Category: Poets of the Greek Anthology vs. Ancient Greek Epigrammatists

Hello everyone! I'm new here and would like to get some feedback on a new category. I was thinking of creating the category "Poets of the Greek Anthology", into which all poets who currently have Wikipedia entires and appear named in the MSS/modern editions of the Anthology might fall. I prefer this to "Ancient Greek Epigrammatists" simply because by virtue of a poet's appearing within the Anthology we generally refer to that poet's work as epigram, whereas a good many people might restrict the definition of epigram to include only shorter poems in pentameter. Periodization also becomes a problem, since Planudes does come in and muck things up a bit. Any thoughts on the virtues/foolishness of my general proposal and the proper form it should take? Thanks, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Meekly withdrawn: there is already Category:Epigrammatists of the Greek Anthology. Sorry everybody. I thought there was none since it didn't come up in the Assessment table on the Project's front page. Should this be corrected and how would one go about that? Thanks and sorry again about the pointless proposal, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no, don't be sorry. Welcome. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Campaign of the Mallians

Check this article, its a relatively new article. Should the title be changed?SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Now Mallian Campaign, which is more idiomatic, and less likely to suggest a campaign by the Malli. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've copy-edited the lead, removing the controversial claim that the Hypaspes was in India (true in 325 BC, but not now), and would appreciate it if somebody more up on Arrian would look at the rest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Western Roman Empire

I have created an article called Final dissolution of the Western Roman Empire. Is this article necessary, and, if it is, are there any improvements I could make? DCI2026 (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what User:Pmanderson says about this. I feel somewhat wary. The article rests far too heavily on Gibbon; it's almost Gibbon on the final dissolution of the Western Roman Empire. "Final dissolution" seems, eh, susceptible to interrogation as a phrase. The infobox causes me dread. As far as I can see the article doesn't even link to Decline of the Roman Empire, which I trust you have at least read, inordinate attention to "lead poisoning" and all. "The ouster of Romulus Augustulus and the accession of Odoacer" seems like a reasonable topic, but is there something else historians call this moment that would make a better article title? But please don't take my comments as discouragement; they're simply initial responses. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if a lot of this information (which is useful and does not appear on a bunch of pages where one would hope to find it) might be appropriate at Western_Roman_Empire#Sack_of_Rome_and_fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire, which is completely unreferenced and includes a cross-reference to Decline of the Roman Empire. The Decline article does appear to be preoccupied with theoretical concerns and DCI2026's article adds good information that seems valuable for a basic historical knowledge. But would my suggestion swell Western Roman Empire beyond its current scope? Would calling the present article Fall of the Roman Empire be too confusing given the fame of Gibbon's title alone and the fact that the Decline article has the subheading "Theories of a fall, decline, transition and continuity"? The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

With the proper lead, Fall of the Roman Empire might be a good idea. (We'd get the "Roman Empire fell in 1453" dogmatists through if we don't explain immediately what the subject is.); Decline of the Roman Empire is a quite reasonable list of sources, although some of them are too theory-driven to be useful for this dates-and-empires article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It has significant omissions; see Julius Nepos and Syagrius. More seriously, any article on this subject should be informed by J. B. Bury (who should be on Google Books), and Peter Brown (who probably isn't). (Averil Cameron may be too late.) Gibbon did not fully realize how much continuity there was between the late Empire in the West and the Ostrogoths. But this approaches theory again. The legal theory that all these events were the reunification of a single Empire would be clarifying; Zeno treated Odoacer much as Gallienus treated Postumus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have orals coming up (which have a snowball's chance in hell of involving 15 seconds of discussing this topic, meaning: I have to read the more current stuff anyway), so if DCI2026 keeps on working on this with the expansions Septentrionalis suggests, I can keep an eye out for bits from the non-Google books so that the references and interpetation (avoiding lead-poisoning, moral dissolution etc.) can get beyond Gibbon and the limits of the web. I'll watch the article in case, but I do think it has a good start, whether or not it ends up getting swallowed by another entry. If it stays as its own article, I do think a more probable/common headword would be useful. I think the unification angle above has its place, but is a refinement that might complicate readers' understanding of the basic: I know I sound like a pedant, but the article that's the topic of this post looks like a move toward providing a historiographical account of what is commonly regarded as a major break, in response to the sort of debate we generally get into about this aspect of the topic (i.e. the Decline article). This is the fuzzy issue that makes me think DCI2026's efforts on this topic might be put to better use on existing pages which race through the details provided by this article. That said, I think the article should continue to develop and will keep open my offer above. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to changing the article's name, as was suggested above. I'm fine with revising (using more modern sources), but for the next few days I will be without internet access. Help with revisions would be much appreciated. DCI2026 (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to move the page to "Fall of the Western Roman Empire." DCI2026 02:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCI2026 (talk • contribs)

I have proposed the deletion of the redirect page currently known as Fall of the Western Roman Empire. It no longer redirects. DCI2026 02:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCI2026 (talk • contribs)

After reading from the Bury book I was able to find on Google Books, I have begun to wonder if my efforts to change the Ititle to "Fall of the Western Roman Empire" were unnecessary - I feel it'd be somewhat contradictory to use that title if a source that should be cited states that...

The phrase [Fall of the Western Roman Empire] is innacurate and unfortunate, and sets the changes which befell in a false light. No Empire fell in A.D. 476; there was no "Western Empire" to fall. There was only one Roman Empire, which was sometimes governed by two or more Augusti.

— J.B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I

Yup, someone who reads one source knows exactly what happened; someone who reads two or three sources is never quite sure. That's why WP:DUE is policy. Read the sources, understand them, and express the result as best you can. (And, on this article, stick to names and dates and events; that's why we have more theoretical articles.)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that your article is actually about the Deposition of Romulus Augustus and accession of Odoacer, were that not an awful concatenation of a title. Your focus is good, so that's why I was wondering whether there was some tidier phrase for naming it. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll move it (temporarily, until a better name can be found) to Odoacer's deposition of Romulus Augustulus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCI2026 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)