Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Emmett L. Bennett

I don't have time to do anything about this but thought I'd mention it here. We seem to lack an article on Emmett L. Bennett Jr., whose New York Times obit is here. Additional material here. He currently has only a tiny paragraph at Linear B#Emmett L. Bennett. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I see the Times has misunderstood what their sources were telling them again; there's a difference between no Greek-speakers being in Greece and the language not existing.
But As meticulous as Professor Bennett’s work was, it once engendered great confusion. In 1951, after he sent Mr. Ventris a copy of his monograph, a grateful Ventris went to the post office to pick it up. As Mr. Robinson’s biography recounts, a suspicious official, eyeing the package, asked him: "I see the contents are listed as Pylos Tablets. Now, just what ailments are pylos tablets supposed to alleviate?" should be in an article - without meticulous, by choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Cute. Alansohn has created the Emmett L. Bennett, Jr. article. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Moirae

A few months ago I posted a plaintive question at the talk page of Moirae about the headword. Not a bite. As an insufferable pedant, I am fated to barely bear the mixed transliteration. Does anyone have thoughts on moving this to Moirai or (shudder) Moerae? — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 09:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No question in my opinion that it should be Moira or Moirai. Wareh (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of inducing a migraine, Cardiff Chestnut should check out the strange promiscuity at Hospitium. Not orthography, but a different sort of Greek-Roman muddle. (You might also want to fix the articles that link to "Moirae"; I just correctrf it to Moirai in the Parcae article.) Cynwolfe (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yikes! That's just a teardown: unadulterated Britannica gibberish. I'd be willing to tag-team it with someone who cares about Rome in the semi-distant future. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I could knock out something semi-coherent on hospitium without distracting myself too much from another off-wiki project I've got going. But I'd forgotten we also have Xenia (Greek), to which theoxenia redirects. Might the solution be to treat the two concepts separately, according to article title? Although plenty of RS equate the two, I'm not convinced that hospitium in the so-called "central" period of Roman history (2nd century BC to 2nd century AD) has all that much to do with xenia in, say, the Iliad or myths involving the sacredness of the stranger received into one's home. The xenia article, at any rate, emphasizes hospitality as an ideal given mythological character, and perhaps out of ignorance, that's what I too think of in regard to xenia. Hospitium, however, seems to be primarily a practical social institution of the usual Roman "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" sort, best discussed in relation to amicitia and clientela. What would anyone think of simply moving any xenia content from Hospitium to Xenia (Greek)? Or deleting it, except for the conventional "the Greek equivalent is" and summary background on how (or if) the two concepts were explicitly seen as a continuity in ancient sources. If this is acceptable, and Cardiff Chestnut would volunteer to do it, I could cobble together a few basic paragraphs for Hospitium. And I suppose we should copy this discussion to Talk:Hospitium? (BTW, surely "cheerful" is the word needed above, not "insufferable".) Cynwolfe (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Moirae is no more. I've copied over the hospitium bits to that talk page.
As for the xenia situation: that article does need to develop beyond Homer. Already in early lyric we find "real world" applications of the system codified in archaic epic, and in later (5th/4th c.) civil and political discourse the word/concept has clearly split into related interpersonal and interpolisical connotations, both sometimes laden with Homeresque solemnity, sometimes shading nearer to what Cynwolfe describes for Rome. RSS are pretty easy to come by, and most fairly recent, because of the reciprocity craze of the latter half of last century, so I'll intermittently tinker soon, firstly by adding bibliography. Beware, Cynwolfe: I will also probably engage in some preventative soft-core "pornography" to prevent etymologitasters from unproblematically deriving ξένϝος and hospes from a common PIE root. Theoxenia really does require its own article that also goes well beyond poetry, but this will require some heavy lifting. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that theoxenia merits its own article. Can't remember why, but I've needed to link to it a couple of times. As for Cardiff Chestnut's mischievous allusion, few of us would not be lying if we claimed to shun it, but unless one is a professional who makes a career of it, it's best not to rely on it obsessively. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Proxeny already has its own article, which may help with the structure here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Gaius Marius the Younger was adopted?

Hi - checking out the Gaius Marius the Younger article, it makes the claim that he was Gaius Marius's adopted son. The modern source for this statement seems to be the 1870 Smith Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. It in turn cites Livy and Paterculus, but checking the appropriate passages, neither Livy (Book 86) nor Paterculus (ii. 26) seem to say this. My limited search of modern sources did not come up with an answer. Does anyone have an answer on this? Oatley2112 (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Plutarch says nothing about the younger Marius being adopted, and implies at one point that he was not—he says something about Marius wanting to educate his son in military matters. As you probably know, at this level of society most "adoptions" were of men who had at least come of age, since the adoption was done to carry on the family name (and property) in suitable fashion when there was no male heir. Jane Gardner in Family and familia in Roman Law and Life omits the Marii here in talking about prominent adoptions in the Republic. This would seem to be an important one, and see note 62 on page 139: I suspect this could be the source of confusion, if there is one. That is, it's possible that the younger Marius is being confused with his cousin Marcus Marius Gratidianus. G. was the son of the elder Marius's sister (that is, he was the nephew of Gaius Marius); G. was then adopted by one of his (two?) maternal uncles, the brother (Marcus) of the elder Marius (Gaius). Gardner otherwise doesn't mention the Marii, and though the argument is ex silentio, I find it hard to believe she would mention Gratidianus and omit the more famous father and son. If you've checked Livy and Velleius, that leaves Appian calling him first "son" then "nephew"; don't have time to check Appian at the moment, but is it clear that he wasn't using "son" to distinguish Gaius Marius the Younger as the son of Gaius Marius from his cousin Gratidianus, hence "nephew" of Gaius Marius? There are other points of confusion involving the two figures. I'm finding several references (including good ones such as Gruen) to the "adopted son of Marius," though. Still, it seems hard to put together a family scenario in which Gaius Marius had a brother Marcus, and Marcus adopted the son of their sister and her husband Gratidius, and Gaius adopted some other nephew from somewhere. Please do report what you find. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I checked Appian previously, and he does refer to the Marius who was consul alongside Gnaeus Papirius Carbo as Marius's nephew, but only as his nephew, not as an adopted son (Appian I:87). Previously he refered to Marius's son, also named Marius. (Appian I:62). Only a few modern sources refer to the younger Marius as Gaius Marius's adopted son; the majority just refer to him as his son. The older sources do seem more consistent in describing the younger Marius as adopted, but this must be a misreading of Appian I:87 - and given that his nephew Gratidianus was not the consul named Marius in 82 BC, Appian's account cannot be taken at face value. Certainly Appian is wrong in I:65 when he refers to the younger Marius as joining Lucius Cornelius Cinna when Cinna fled Rome - this must be Marcus Marius Gratidianus, as the younger Marius was with his father at the time. My view is that Appian has confused the two sons of Gaius Marius, one natural, one adopted, and conflated them into one person.
I agree with your reasoning about not adopting the younger Marius at such a young age, and also about adopting two sons, especially as one (Marcus Marius Gratidianus) followed the traditional naming conventions of retaining his birth name after adoption, whilst the younger Marius did not. In the end, we must go back to the sources, and Appian's confusion notwithstanding, none of the other extant sources (Livy, Paterculus, Pliny, Cassius Dio, Plutarch, Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, or the Fasti) refer to the younger Marius as being adopted. I am also happy to be led by Jane Gardner's silence on the matter. When I get around to it, I shall update the Gaius Marius the Younger page to correct this. Oatley2112 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: there is a single ancient source that merely implies Gaius Marius the Younger was adopted because it identifies the consul of 82 as Gaius Marius's nephew? And this source is of all people Appian (who had trouble sorting out other Marii of the time)? The translation of Appian 1.62 at LacusCurtius just calls GM the Younger the son of Marius, and nothing about adoption. But to clarify my ramble, I'm constructing the family scenario as: we have three Marian siblings, Gaius, Marcus, and the sister who marries Gratidius. Gratidius dies, and his son is adopted by uncle Marcus, who evidently had no son. This implies to me that Gaius's son was his natural son, because it's unclear where he would've come from as an additional nephew (another sister?). So I agree with you that it's extremely likely that Appian calling the consul of 82 the nephew of Gaius Marius is a slip caused by the political shenanigans for 82 and the presence of the Marian nephew Gratidianus in the mix. Since the only reason GM the Younger got the nod that year was his status as the great Gaius Marius's son (he met none of the requirements for the consulship, and the nephew Gratidianus did, cult following and all), it also seems likely that if GM were adopted, his status as an adopted heir would've been considered noteworthy in the sources. There must surely be an Appian commentary somewhere that elucidates this. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Even the identity of which brother adopted Gratidius has adherents for both brothers - I've seen sources which state that he was the adopted son of the great man himself (eg. Thomas Rice Holmes "The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, Vol. I", pg60), and others by his brother Marcus. The modern consensus seems to be that it was Marcus Marius who adopted Gratidius, but this is by no means universal. Oh, and by the way, just to complicate matters, the fasti in the Chronography of 354 AD states that for the year 672 (82 BC), the consul alongside Carbo was "Gratilliano" (Gratidius), which may have also contributed to the confusion about the younger Marius (as this supports the statement in Appian I:87). Oatley2112 (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
That's extremely interesting work you've done there. I'd have to agree that it couldn't be Gaius Marius who adopted Gratidianus (if he had a natural son, he wouldn't have adopted him, and if he didn't, he wouldn't have adopted two sons), or surely it would've been the better-qualified Gratidianus and not GM the Younger who got the consulship. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Should dead languages be omitted from some linguistics articles

...because our knowledge of them is "speculative"? See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Dead_languages_in_phone_tables. Wareh (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be a discussion for that project.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Which presumably is why Wareh provided a link there. Just to clarify the scope of this project, the languages of "Classical Greece and Rome" are ancient Greek and Latin, which are sometimes labeled "dead" languages even though Greek clearly isn't. Therefore, Wareh probably thought that some members of this project might have an interest in how the languages we're trained in or culturally interested in are represented from a linguistic perspective in the encyclopedia: it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't presume anything other than Waher's making a simple good faith contribution here, as I did. Nothing more, nothing less.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Greek love removed from project

Due to the lack of information that makes the article a part of this project and the extreme ownership issues and edit warring there I am removing it from the project.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What edit warring? Whom are you accusing of edit warring? And please point to a policy or guideline that says if a member or members of a project do edit war (diffs, please), then that project should be barred from placing the article within its scope. Or cite any policy or guideline that supports your unilateral action, which I am undoing, since the relevance of the ancient background is hardly tangential to the subject. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It fits under our project. If the article is beset by one or another kind of special problem, then that would be all the more reason to retain the listing, which is effectively an invitation for editors interested in classical antiquity to have a look and improve where possible. Wareh (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Right now I am still removing it from the project. There has been no consensus to place it back as of yet. Simply being two against one is not a consensus and I do believe that placing it back requires that the editor doing so explain why they believe it should stay. Questioning the editor who made the bold edit is not explaining why it was placed back.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Greek love falls within the scope of this project because it deals with the reception of classical antiquity, which is the focus of this project. Ownership and edit warring are behaviors of individuals that should be reported to the appropriate notice board. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it fits under our project because (1) the subject is deeply and obviously connected to Classical antiquity (you may also feel that reception studies don't belong in Classics Departments, but in fact people study the classical tradition in the academic discipline of Classics, and we're not here to reinvent our definition of the subject), (2) the article has been a matter of extensive discussion here before, demonstrating the interest in project members and observers in taking note of its developments. Either reason would be adequate by itself. The editor placing the banner back has hereby "explained why he believes it should stay." If a consensus finds me to have acted rashly, I'll accept correction graciously. Wareh (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You did that pretty graciously already and I will leave the article in the project unless anyone else finds the subject unrelated. Thank You.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Precipitous archiving

Some material has been archived; it can be found here.

A couple of ongoing discussions that I felt were still open were just moved to the archive. Is it possible to retrieve at least some of this? Why was it done? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The archive is also mislabeled, since it contains discussion dating earlier than this month. And discussion from this month should not of course be archived yet. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I just did this. Precipitously. If anyone objects they can fix it, but I felt we might still have a couple of live issues there. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all...unless you are discussing ways to improve articles you are just chatting. Please take those chats to your personal page. What has been returned seems legit to the articles so no problem returning those. Second, there hasn't been an archive made here in some time.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In what ways are the discussions conducted this month just "chatting"? One section was a suggestion for a new article; one dealt first with an issue of orthography and then with the content issue of how to treat xenia/hospitium; the other dealt with a vexed and complex point of article content. Why should a two-day-old discussion be archived? The oldest content on this page was from November 2011 and dealt with Otium, an article that until quite recently was still undergoing active editing. As far as I'm concerned, all Wikipedia users are welcome to post here and discuss anything that might interest project members, or anything that project members might conceivably help with in building the encyclopedia. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what your point is. No, members may not discuss anything that might interest them here or on any talk page. The use of the talk pages as a platform for discussing the subject itself or the authors/writers opinion unrelated to the article itself is an attempt to push others away from the discussion. I have even seen some telling editors that they are out of their depth or lack the knowledge to even be in the discussion. This is considered a disruption problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say editors should discuss anything that happened to interest them here, but anything that one might reasonably assume members of a project called "Classical Greece and Rome" might be interested in as regards building the encyclopedia. In order to arrive at a clear presentation, it may be necessary to discuss a topic in some detail and to share and evaluate sources. Not every discussion here will be of interest to all or even most project members. Not all project members have an interest or expertise in the same topics. But every WP editor, project member or not, should feel welcome to come here to discuss a topic that falls within the scope of the project. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You said exactly that. There are no limits to who may post on even the project talk page, but the conversation is limited to improving specific articles or discussing ways to improve the project itself. This is NOT a forum for discussing the subject and members are NOT welcome to take up the page for permanent ongoing discussions of subjects just because they fall within the scope of the project. Talk pages have a specific reason for being and that is not for a general discussion of topics. It is here to discuss ways to improve articles and on the project here, it is for discussing the articles/problems and or ways to improve them and improving the project itself. Please limit you discussions here to that.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I was vague the first time I meant what I said when I clarified. Sharing sources and evaluating them is certainly a valid way to use a talk page, though the specifics of a discussion should be copied to the article's talk page, agreed. But please stop trying to bully people into shutting up and doing what you want. You don't want people to discuss anything you're not interested in, and then without any discussion you and you alone decide what the project should collectively focus on this month. It's a good topic and one that needs attention, and I applaud the choice, but why didn't you phrase it as a proposal? That's what collaboration is. Not dictating what others can and cannot talk about. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point you are doing exactly what I stated, disruption. I am not bullying anyone, but your words may certainly be taken as such. I have been helping run this Project for years and if you suddenly have a problem with sticking to Wikipedia policy and guidelines you are welcome to use another project. AGAIN, this page is for the discussion of improving articles not discussing the subject itself. I will tell you point blank. You are the bully and you are not welcome to continue berating the Project members to make this your personal space. Do you understand that?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, you have a wealth of knowledge and your contributions are truly welcome and in many cases are extraordinary, but you also have a way of being extremely uncivil which creates an atmosphere that is simply unacceptable. All I ask is that you move forward in a manner more fitting this encyclopedia. We want to be inclusive not exclusive. There are going to be people that do not agree with assessments about a number of things but we attempt to form consensus with all contributors one way or another. Let's move forward with that in mind.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed my name from the list of members at your request, and will no longer trouble the project. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Amadscientist, I think you are out of line here, and Cynwolfe I don't think you should let Amadscientist run you off the project, you have been, and I hope will continue to be, a significant contributor to this project. Paul August ☎ 15:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the project needs Cynwolfe, whose views here are welcome, apposite and worth reading. Andrew Dalby 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I obviously agree and should add that her participation only adds to the collaborative spirit of the Project. — the cardiff | chestnut — 16:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm finding it hard to make out just what happened here, or (possibly more to the point) why it happened, but Amadscientist seems way out of order. Cynwolfe started the thread. Her comments were brief, reasonable and explanatory. I see no reason to describe them as "just chatting", nor any logical or relevant reason for a lecture with comments such as "The use of the talk pages as a platform for discussing the subject itself or the authors/writers opinion unrelated to the article itself is an attempt to push others away from the discussion. I have even seen some telling editors that they are out of their depth or lack the knowledge to even be in the discussion." What has that to do with Cynwolfe? And where has she been "extremely uncivil"? Haploidavey (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What? Calling me a bully that doesn't want people talking about things I am not concerned with isn't? That's just the tip of the iceberg. Telling me to F**k off when I first notified them about a change to an article in June and calling me "Anti-intellectual"?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't push anyone away. I didn't ask anyone to leave the project. But I am tired of having to be the nice guy to incivility and from day one with Cynwolfe they have been using very harsh, uncivil and horrible tactics to get their way. Foul language and name calling and far worse, trying to berate others, both here and on several pages. When I archived this page, I archived discussions that were ongoing and Cynwolfe replaced them. No problem, but that wasn't enough. I had to be accused of a number of things along with that and called a bully who didn't want conversation being carried out that I didn't have interest in. The member always goes two steps too far. And that's just what happened here.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The new collaboration for the month is Agora

Please help expand this stub into a C or B class article. Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a really good idea. Thanks for calling attention to it. It's surprising that such an important topic is still a stub. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it was actually very surprising to me as well. A good article to expand I think.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Greek love GA review

An article within the Project's scope, Greek Love, is undergoing a Good Article review, please participate!

The article Greek love has been nominated for a GA review. The nominator has commented that It probably wont make it, but it is important to try. The article can certainly use more eyes on it and GA nomination is a good way to start, so I'm posting a notice to all projects that have a banner there. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of an odd thing to do and seems to be overstepping a bit in my opinion. Boarder line personal attack for something you don't agree with? Just odd. Never seen this done before, but I may be wrong.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This could be viewed as canvassing.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed: It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Notices at relevant projects are the first approved way to solicit a broad range of opinions. I quoted the nominator because I did not want to seem to be advocating for GA status, which IMHO the article is unlikely to deserve in the foreseeable future. I wouldn't have posted here given the recent brouhaha, but I posted an identical message at all projects. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but you are seeking an outcome and have specifically named an individual. And that is defined as canvassing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I see now that the quotation could be construed as campaigning, but because you explicitly said you nominated it in order to broaden participation, and not because you thought it was already well-polished (as most GA nominees are), I thought it might attract more help if that purpose was made clear. Three or four previously uninvolved editors whose names I don't recognize have already appeared at the page. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess trying to assume the intentions of others in such a narrow manner might be a slight problem here as well. Also, GA articles are not that polished, they are simply Good Articles under a set criteria which can be interpreted in many ways by a reviewer. More eyes on the article can only be a good thing. I just question your intentions in Canvassing the projects to stop the GA as you attempted to do by posting at the GA nomination page. This isn't constructive, good faith editing or helping improve the article. It's like you want it to stay as it is and I know that isn't true...is it?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor also questioned whether a GA review was appropriate at this stage in the article's development: [1] and [2] Cynwolfe (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything. I am within my rights to nominate the page. I ask you to please stop berating me over this. PLEASE!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, but I wasn't berating you. You questioned my motives in expressing reservations about the GA process at this time, as if these reservations were groundless or obstructionist or a matter of bad faith, so I was pointing out that an uninvolved editor had also wondered whether this was the right course. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand. You may simply be enthusiastic and I understand an editor made a few posts discussing this with me, but I stand by the nomination as well as the work of all editors including myself. I am a major contributor to the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You two are obviously working this out magnanimously, but I'm hatting this and the archiving related argument so that the ugliness of the past two days will be, at least, out of sight, and the temptation to revisit all this too fervently might be dampened. If I'm out of line, please do revert me. — the cardiff | chestnut — 05:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

An open apology!

I extend an apology to User:Cynwolfe for my own behavior here. Regardless of what I may have felt at the time, it wasn't my proudest moment or showing good faith to the member. No matter what excuse I may have felt there was for my words, they could well have been selected better and just added fuel to whatever situation there may have been at the time.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture. I apologize for my excesses, and for not mastering a tone of voice that too often comes across as high-handedness. It is never my intention to discourage participation. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Chailae"

An IP from Ankara has twice added this to Nymph:

Chailae or Chailaes (snow nymph; also winter smile), other name variants include Chailes, Chailas or Chailaid; shows similarities with Aurae (breezes). Also goes by 'Çağıl' in certain parts of Anatolia.

Has anyone heard of these? I can't find the forms in Greek (TLG and Packard Inscriptions dB, Χαιλ- or even -λαιδ-) or Latin (PHI, Chael-), but the χ ... λ gives this a veneer of plausibility because of the etymological relation of "hail" and κάχληξ, "pebble". Çağıl is a toponym in Turkey and a male given name, as in Çağıl Uyar. This smells like a semi-learned hoax, but I can't be sure. Any insights?

Hey, I was hoping my Dictionary of Turkish Etymology would come in handy... no, just kidding. I trust your nostrils, and the onus of proof - and edit summaries, come to that - rests with the IP. I'll post them a note, and revert. Haploidavey (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if even half true, it suggests a Byzantine loan word. I'll try to check when I next have access to EA Sophocles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I never think of that. Sophocles can be found at archive.org. The forms that I can extrapolate from the IP's "winter smiles" don't show up. — cardiff | chestnut — 21:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Come to think of it, does he mean Chionides? See Catullus 84 for chionios. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You might be on to something. No class of nymphs in Chion- shows up, but there are Chiones—one a "nymph" according to Hecataeus FGrHist 1 F 141, as is the mother of Priapos, though a Naiad. If in some region of Anatolia Chione did somehow morph into a Greek nymph-class identified with Çağıl and, in turn, called the Chailae, I'd love to here the story. — cardiff | chestnut — 05:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Christian Settipani and Roman biographies

I've been going through a number of Roman biographical articles, and a very large number appear to be infected with material that is apparently sourced from Christian Settipani, who appears to be a self-taught geneologist. The problem I have is that much of the material which is sourced from him I can find nowhere else, which is a concern (not to mention I am always worried when someone writes a book entitled Carolingian Descent From the Pharoahs). But to the point at hand - I was about to launch into a revision of Pupienus, and it has some statements, apparently stemming from Settipani's work, about his ancestry which I cannot source from anywhere else - such as the identity of his father, Marcus Pupienus Maximus. Doing a google book search comes up two books sourced from Wikipedia, and two from the year 1790. I also had need to excise parts of the Avidius Cassius page, which mentioned a fourth child and descent from Augustus which, again, I could find no other source for, but originate with Settipani.

References to his work are scattered throughout Wikipedia, so I am wondering how much credence we can place upon this material? Is he a reliable secondary source? I can find no reviews of his work outside of those which have been published as part of genealogical publications, which have no issues with his work. My view would be to remove any material which does not have supporting references in another reputable source. What do others think? Oatley2112 (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't sound reliable; also, he is a tertiary source. The nonsense in his article about Gibbon inventing a complete disjunction between the Germanic invaders and the Roman aristocracy is presumably his (I moved it to talk); it is the effusion of somebody who hasn't read Gibbon far enough to get to Eudocia or Orestes. But I'm sure he makes good money telling his clients they descend from Cheops. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
This review of Settipani's less controversial claims should be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Very useful -- I'd never seen him reviewed anywhere. Andrew Dalby 13:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
In short, move it to talk, or add that it is hypothetical and based, at best, on assuming similar names are proofs of descent. There are prosopographies that will discuss anybody Settipani covers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
There are 285 mentions of Settipani on en:wiki, and over 400 on fr:wiki. He hasn't got very far on de:wiki yet.
His collaborator Katharine Keats-Rohan seems to be academic, peer-reviewed, etc.; but is a medievalist, so perhaps has no involvement with Settipani's ancient researches. Andrew Dalby 13:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice - I shall include some of his material, where there is another source to support it or where it is not too fanciful or too off topic (eg, the whole "relationship" to Scipio Africanus, which has nothing at all to do with the Pupienus article, really. And for the "he could claim to be first Imperator of Rome to be a direct descendant of the Second Punic War Hero" - well, no he couldn't claim it, for the simple reason that he certainly didn't; not to mention this was not a lineage recognized by the ancient authors at all). But I will include a note alongside the citation to his work, noting his heavy reliance on onomastic material. Oatley2112 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Classical Greece and Rome will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in within classical Greece and Rome. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox castrum

You may want to take a look at {{Infobox castrum}} with examples like Porolissum or Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. It was developed initially for WP:Dacia but should be usable in any Roman province, and not just for castra but also settlements/cities etc. Looking forward for your feedback. Cheers!--Codrin.B (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Quintus Tineius Rufus

I found articles for Quintus Tineius Rufus (consul 182) and Quintus Tineius Rufus (consul 195). To my eye they look like the same guy. It appears to me that the articles should be combined and one of the pages deleted by someone who knows ancient Rome and Wikipedia better than I

If there's a more appropriate place to make this kind of comment, please let me know. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Any relation to this one Quintus Tineius Rufus (consul 127)? I'll have a quick look.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

According to our List of Roman consuls the Consuls for 195 AD were P. Iulius Scapula Tertullus Priscus and Q. Tineius Clemens. And just in case I checked the consuls for 195 BC and they were L. Valerius Flaccus and M. Porcius Cato. I will double check a relaible source on this before I take action. It may just require moving Quintus Tineius Rufus (consul 195) which appears to be the incorrect stub article, to Q. Tineius Clemens --Amadscientist (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oy vey...what a mess and a huge circle this all goes to. Thank you SchreiberBike. This appears to be a widening black hole that is sucking all these people into a swirling mess of Quintus'. This may take a bit and not tonight, that's for sure.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
If anyone else wants to deal with this...have at it. I might not be able to get to it for some time. It appears that the names are simply repeated for the different people that should be represented in the articles and in some instances they are incorrect in who they speak of and the relationship to the individuals on the article. The last one, for example should probably be titled as the supposed father mentioned or the brother.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks as if some articles were created semi-automatically, perhaps on the basis of Christian Settipani's work, by an editor who is now blocked. If anyone wants to check them, Vicipaedia already by that time had articles on all the consules ordinarii of the period up to AD 385. The list of consuls on Vicipaedia has links to them all. Here's the entry for la:Quintus Tineius Clemens. The editor who did this work on Vicipaedia generally cites Der neue Pauly, which (I'd say) is more reliable than Settipani. Andrew Dalby 13:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking for an inscription

The article Sicilicus could really use an illustration, if anyone knows of a picture of an actual use in ancient writing.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That might be a bit tricky. According to Fontaine, M., "Sicilicissitat (Plautus, Menaechmi 12) and Early Geminate Writing in Latin (with an Appendix on Men. 13)", Mnemosyne, 56: 95–110, JSTOR 4433712, there are only three inscriptions. These are: CIL 12.2212, CIL 10.3743 and CIL 6.21736. The Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum website does not appear to have photos or squeezes of any of these. Perhaps someone else knows better how to track down an image. — cardiff | chestnut — 21:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It's fantastic that you were able to track that down! I'll add the information to my request in case there happens to be a person with access to these. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Template for discussion: Template:Infobox castrum

For those interested, there is a request for deletion on Template:Infobox castrum, currently used in a series of articles on Roman castra. For example Porolissum.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Template for discussion: Template:Infobox dava

For those interested, there is a request for deletion on Template:Infobox dava, currently used in 91 articles about Dacian cities/fortresses.--Codrin.B (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed article: List of deified Romans

Hello! I propose the creation of an article to supplement the one on the imperial cult that chronological lists the deified men and women in Roman history:

Divi

Divae

Or at least an article that contains a gallery of coins that depict the deified ones. Anyway, if some with better editing skills than I knows how to get the above organzied into a list, I would gladly help go from there with adding sources, etc. Such a list more clearly visually illustrates the extent of deification and provides a helpful navigational tool. Thanks! --24.154.173.243 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure Cleopatra or Veleda would have called themselves Romans :) There are several cases where I want to ask you "who on earth deified him?" but I guess your sources will answer this ... Andrew Dalby 10:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Surely if it is a list of deified Romans, the list should be limited to Roman citizens? This would exclude Jesus Christ surely, who wasn't a Roman, and who was under the authority of Herod Antipas, and not part of the Roman province of Judaea? And I agree with Andrew above - just who would have deified Domitian, for instance, who was Damnatio memoriae - see List of condemned Roman emperors. Oatley2112 (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Himself. Dominus ac deus is from Domitian's time; so also Caligula. Subnumine (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not universally accepted that Domitian officially declared himself Dominus ac deus, regardless of Suetonius and Dio's accounts. There is no epigraphic evidence to support this contention, which one would have expected, as Gallienus and Aurelian certainly did in their time. See Brian Jones The Emperor Domitian (1993) pgs 108-109 on this subject. Oatley2112 (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I sit corrected, although Jones seems to be saying largely that it was never official. But I think we have discouraged this attempt; any new attempt should at least recognize that "deification" is not a yes or no question: Cornelia, Scipio Africanus, Marc Antony, Domitian, Caesar, and Vespasian are not all "gods" in the same sense. Subnumine (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
On my talk page, you noted that Marcellus and Appius Claudius Pulcher (consul 54 BC) were deified in the provinces. Do you have a source indicating that? Thanks! What we could have is a List of deified Romans with subsections or divisions based on various clear criteria, such as "Romans who appear on coins as a diva, divo, or divus", "Romans deified by the Senate according to written sources, such as Suetonius", etc. Or even a table that indicates which of the various criteria they meet. I think it would be valuable to get a clear sense of exactly how many Romans were deified by the Senate, how many were named as Diva or Divus on coins, etc. as well as how many exactly were designated divine on Greek coins as well. I would like to see a sourced list of all those who are depicted in the following manner on coins: Divus Augustus, Diva Drusilla, Divo Numeriano, Diva Augusta Sabina, Diva Maesa Augusta, Diva Julia Augusta, etc. If there are Greek equivalents (ΘЄA or Thea?), I am forgetting, please let me know, but we should have a table with images showcasing this information. It would be a valuable illustrative tool for conveying the imperial cult, Roman religion, and a supplement to List of people considered deities. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Our article on Imperial cult (Roman Empire) cites Lily Ross Taylor for cult given to Romans under the Republic (mostly in the East, but to some extent at Rome). I would start there. Subnumine (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Protogenoi

There's a big problem with this headword. Please see Talk:Protogenoi#Needed move. — cardiff | chestnut — 04:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Germanic Wars

The Germanic Wars article has gone through some recent expansion to include material which appears to be outside the scope previously denoted, in terms of the time period and in terms that some of the conflicts now listed have no Roman involvement. It is not a subject I know much about but to my eye at the very least there seems to be some internal contradiction. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Phineas

There is a problem with this headword. The move, if it's decided one be made, will require some juggling. Please see Talk:Phineas#Phineas > Phineus. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 13:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Front page

I was just pleasantly surprised to find Cleomenean War is being featured up front today. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 00:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Xenia (Greek)

Apologies for posting here, but the first paragraph of Xenia (Greek) is a grammatical scandal and desperately needs the attention of someone who knows ancient Greek. I could do it, but there are additional cultural issues I don't want to get sucked into. I'm not sure why there's a separate article Xenos (Greek), since I'd think of that as a mere lexical item if considered separately from xenia, unless an article on the xenos has a legal angle (not currently present) in contrast to citizenship. Discussion calls philoxenia what I always thought was just plain xenia. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate article

We've two articles on the same individual. The newer is Quintus Metellus Celer and older is Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer. I think a merge of the new into the old would not be controversial; but I can no longer cope with complex mark-up performances. Could some kind and knowledgeable soul oblige with the necessaries? Haploidavey (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I would also want to make sure that the language in the second graf of Quintus Metellus Celer is really that of the sober Mr. Gruen, as cited. The Metelli give me a headache. Are we sure (given the prosopography in Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer) that the two articles were originally intended to be about the same person? Notice that Quintus Metellus Celer is first identified as a tribune, not by a consulship, which he should've been if the consul of 60 BC were meant, and a tribune is referred to in the immediate genealogy of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer. I wonder whether the Metelli Celeres might attract the attention of Oatley2112, who is so knowledgeable about these things? If not, I'll consult Broughton. If the two articles were intended to be about separate individuals, you could just cut info and move it to the appropriate place. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
To clarify (or not), at one time there was an article on a Publius Licinius Crassus that managed to thoroughly confuse the consular grandfather and the young whippersnapper who died at the Battle of Carrhae. However, a separate article on the grandfather did exist as well, and the article on the "died before his time" Crassus for various reasons couldn't be called Publius Licinius Crassus. So neither merging nor forking quite did the trick, as I recall. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I did wonder. To be frank, I find Roman naming a bloody nightmare. We'd better await further input. Haploidavey (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Greek Tragedy

Recently this former redirect to tragedy was overwritten with a very poor and sloppy translation of it:Tragedia greca. I was about to clean up the translation and markup, but realized that there was probably some reason from before my time that Theatre of ancient Greece was the only main article for the topic. (Greek tragedy, with lowercase "t", goes to that page.) Is this an occasion for cleanup and merge? — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 18:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree that there's any "reason" for us to lack an encyclopedic treatment of the crucial topic of Greek tragedy! The ideal would clearly be a strong and independent article Greek tragedy. The question is whether you or others see or can put together enough material to create such an article. Even having it as a placeholder would, in my opinion, have an important advantage: anyone who wants to improve it can do so (without having to start a new article). Some previous discussion here. Wareh (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't have much patience for tragedy right now, but I'll try at least to tidy up the current article for others to come along and edit. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 20:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually I can't stomach reconciling the English with the Italian version right now as I'm hard-headed and it's simply not the way I'd write the article. I'll clean up the broken templates and such, but a more patient and generous editor will have to turn it into English or write a new article. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I edit-conflicted with Wareh, but here was my first response: There is somewhere a lugubrious discussion about this state of affairs, I think on Wareh's talk page (archived, and now linked). As far as I know, there's no reason "Greek tragedy" hasn't existed. Theatre of ancient Greece should be the overview, I'd think, on what kinds of performance genres constitute "theatre in ancient Greece", stagecraft, the physical theatre as such, the literature of the theatre, the sociology of the theatre, and all that. That English WP can't get its collective act together to produce even a modest article on ancient Greek tragedy is a sad comment on something, not sure what. Translating other-language articles on major topics that have plenty of English scholarship (quite a different matter if we have an Italian article on a town in Italy or Italian TV show, for instance) seems contrary to the guidelines on preferring English-language sources, and they usually create overwhelming copyediting problems, as you see. I'd say the article should be "Greek tragedy," lowercase, and not merged into the theatre overview. I'd bet that a search for "Greek tragedy" would be one of the top 20 or at least 50 article searches within the scope of this project. But since I'm not in a position to help at the moment, that's just more long actionless griping about this gap in coverage. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Macedonian army"

The usage of the title Macedonian army is under discussion, see Talk:Army of Macedon. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

More morphological nitpicking

For the transliterati, please see talk:Peneleus. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 22:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Roman art proposed move

Comments invited on a proposed move for Roman art. Briefly, I've long thought this should be Ancient Roman art, now a redirect, but I wonder whether it should be Art of ancient Rome, given the ambiguity of what's "Roman" under the Empire. I've opened a discussion on the talk page. I don't feel strongly about what it might end up being called, but the current title seems wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Cannae

One of our Italian friends has been trying to translate Battle of Cannae. I've done my best with a few questions, but I'm no military historian. So, if any Roman History folks have the time and inclination, it'd be great if you could add the page to your watchlist and help out when these occasional questions come up. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 19:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Polytonic

Template:Polytonic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

This template is no longer used in content namespaces, but since members of this project edit in its primary usage areas I post a notice here ... just in case. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 02:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Crabs in the Cloaca Maxima

I know we're not supposed to make posts just because something might be interesting to the members of this project, but really, I can't resist sharing this article, which was such a pleasure to read. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rad. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 00:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Magna Graecia

Could a Hellenist who can spare a minute check the map I just added to Magna Graecia, especially the accompanying key? I find that our maps are sometimes dodgy. I grabbed this one from Commons because when I visited the article, the image file for the map was a redlink. I'm too lazy to do the amount of work I'd need to do, since this isn't something I can just glance at it and know right or wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a nice map and certainly enhances the article. The author (User:Fut. Perf.) is to be trusted to present sound material; of course if anyone wishes to make it even better & can, they may, but that's a separate job that I don't think falls to you. There was some previous discussion of this map some years ago. Wareh (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I should've known there'd be a convoluted history. But pleasant to revisit Pmanderson in his heyday. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Richard Keatinge/Fall of the Western Roman Empire

User talk:Richard Keatinge/Fall of the Western Roman Empire is ready for mainspace I hope. I propose to write it over the present page (a redirect) Fall of the Western Roman Empire in a few days. I'd like to thank User:Bazuz for copious help so far. I don't suppose the page is perfect and I'd like to invite comments at User talk:Richard Keatinge. Or you could wait until it arrives in mainspace of course. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Fall of the Western Roman Empire is now live. Thanks in particular to Bazuz for many wise words, and also to Cardiffchestnut. Credit to User:DCI2026 who stimulated me into actually beginning the process of writing the thing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome/Archive_15&oldid=1050236157"