Talk:Hypatia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Was she really a Greek?

If you checked her father's article on the Wikipedia(Theon) , you'll find that Historians are not sure if he's Greek or Egyptian, so how come her article says she's Greek??!

Yes she was Greek.[1][2][3](Angar432 (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Now it says that she was Egyptian. I put a citation needed note on that but it was removed by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah with comment:"are you kidding? take it to the talk page please if you have an issue". I still think that if it says that she was Egyptian there must be some source provided as this seems to be a disputable statement. Papamitsos (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is this too subtle of a question for me to understand? She lived in Egypt in the Greek empire. She was both Egyptian and Greek, no?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The nationality debates of those old times are not always settled but take a look at the Britannica article http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/279463/Hypatia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdawn 21 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Legacy section

It still reads like a glorified trivia section. From what I can tell, much of it should be merged into other sections. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Same thing with "Later references". Somebody was obviously too lazy to turn this into relevant sections (or merge into the body). Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Same with "partial list of specific accomplishments" in "Works". Convert to prose and expand. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm starting cleanup, checking references, moving sources out of the lead and into the body, and formatting duplicate sources in the notes. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hypatia is portrayed by Rachel Weisz; the film is expected to be released in 2009[41].
  • YouTube video link to trailer isn't the best source. I would prefer a secondary source discussing the upcoming film. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Soldan and Heppe

Despite her actual background, authors Soldan and Heppe wrote a text in 1990 arguing that Hypatia may have been the first famous "witch" punished under Christian authority.[27]

This needs to be explained. Dropping this in the article with little or no reason isn't helpful. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Link is wrong : "Theon Alexandricus (ca. 335–405), who educated her as was the norm for boys; he was the last librarian of the Alexandria Library in the Museum of Alexandria." This (Alexandria Library) links to the modern Alexandria Library article on Wikipedia. It should link to (Library of Alexandria) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Decree_of_Theodosius.2C_destruction_of_the_Serapeum_in_391 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnomelhcir (talk • contribs) 02:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor 207.112.74.90

Just FYI for all editors of this article. 207.112.74.90 is a member of the #ChristianDebate channel on DalNet IRC who goes by the nickname "Solice." She was editing the article to agree with her assertions in-chat. Be on the lookout. :-) -- Darius Arcturus (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Solice/Anonymous editor: Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Triune (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just dropping by to tell you that Solice has changed her IP address and is at it again, doing the exact same thing: Solice <~lady@64.56.230.108> “*******************************" (That's copy/pasted from her on IRC.) If you'll note, they just edited the exact same thing.

Wrong use of the "Hellenistic Age" in the introduction

The traditional, and appropriate, use of that term is for the length of time between classical greece and the roman empire (final 3 centuries BC). I haven't read citations 6 and 7, so I didn't want to immediately change the text, but as it stands now it makes no sense. I also doubt any published book would get that wrong. She was a scholar in Egypt in the 4th century AD. Perhaps her murder marked a figurative end to the Greco-Roman classical world, but I haven't even heard of her getting that much significance. I'm open to suggestions before I attempt a fix. Jtackney (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

mob who blamed her for religious turmoil

The citation added by Pollinosisss doesn't support the text "...mob who blamed her for religious turmoil." I have Watt's book. The book (p. 198 as referenced by Pollinosisss) specifically says that Cyril spread lies about Hypatia, essentially calling her a pagan witch, which is part of the reason why they attacked her. We know the decree by Theodosius I is what originally incited the masses. This WP article is still misleading. It still either needs a GOOD citation supporting this ("blamed her for religious turmoil"), or a text change. MithrasPriest (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

computer crash caused this to be posted 3 times... fixing... MithrasPriest (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Watts (p.202-203), "we know of no other violence directed against pagan intellectuals in Alexandria for the next seventy-two years". If her murder was triggered by the Theodosian decree as you claim, why were no other pagan intellectuals attacked? It seems clear to me that violence against her was instigated by Cyril for getting politically involved with his rival Orestes.

To answer your question: the original 391 CE destruction of the Serapium, Mithraeum, and library with its approx. 1,000,000 scrolls, shortly after the Theodosian decree! They eventually caught up with Hypatia too. The Theodosian decree, along with Papal bulls through the ages, caused oppression of "pagan" (non-Christian) texts of all sorts including technological texts. Seventy two years of "peace" for pagans is not a good record anyway. MithrasPriest (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To quote once more from Watts(p.198), "John, drawing upon Cyril's propaganda, portrayed Hypatia as a magician who put spells upon Orestes and a number of prominent Christians in the city. Using her spells, she caused these Christians to assemble at Orestes' house and, John intimates. her magic then caused the attacks against the Jews that brought Cyril and Orestes into conflict." In other words, she was made to appear to be the source of divisiveness(religious turmoil) between the two.

Pollinosisss (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And Watts gets this information from what primary source? Just because an author states it does not mean it is valid history. Grailknighthero (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to put this parallel, but the recent 2011 Alexandria bombing is, to say the least, really disquieting... Sorry for the bit of somewhat OR, and... well, I don't find sincerity in wishing good 2011 to everyone :( dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

source to inlcude?

http://www.cosmopolis.com/alexandria/hypatia-bio-john.html

Page rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Would anyone object to having this page renamed from 'Hypatia of Alexandria' to 'Hypatia'? Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names would seem to favour the latter. - Pollinosisss (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hypatia of Alexandria → Hypatia — - Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names -Pollinosisss (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. She seems to have no important rival. Flamarande (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. She is clearly the most (or better: only) prominent bearer of the name. Constantine ✍ 09:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

More on Hypatia

Hello everyone. I have found more information on Hypatia and I want to include it in the Wikipedia article. It's a bit sarcastic but I think it's worth reading.

"...Up until the Enlightement no one even knew who Hypatia was. Then, Pantheist John Toland in 1720 and Voltaire in 1736 opened the dispute on the liberal Hypatia killed by clerical obscurantism. In 1776 Edward Gibbon reinforced lore in his well-known work dealing with the fall (caused by the Christendom) of the Roman Empire. In the following century it was the turn of Romantics: Hypatia was depicted as a beautiful woman and as the last representative of the ancient world (imagined as an Arcadia with plenty of nymphs, zephyrs, shepherds and satyrs) slaughtered by papist fanaticism. Of course, in the 20th Century Hypatia, a veteran feminist, became a prey to Catholic misogyny. The only slightly discordant voice was Mario Luzi’s who based a play on her life in 1978. And now comes a movie, (and the “total art” of cinema, which can leave a mark in the human mind with a strength that literature cannot even dream to match): science versus religion, tolerance versus fideism. Just guess who the “good guys” and the “bad guys” are. Pure Odifreddi-like stuff. So we have to resign ourselves to the politically correct mumbo jumbo. And don’t count on opposite cinema because it is non-existent: Renzo Martinelli and his "Barbarossa" movie were labeled as “pro-Lega” by all mass-media, so that the public deserted theatres.

With our limited instruments we’ll tell the truth on the “Hypatia case”. First of all, she might have been beautiful in her youth, since in 415 AD she was in her sixties (in an era when very few people could boast any teeth in their mouths by age 40). Hers was a political murder and religion played no part in it. Hypatia, the daughter of a philosopher very familiar with Hermeticism and Orphism – Theon – was a Neo-Platonist philosopher who taught in Alexandria. Hers was just one school among the many populating that capital of ancient culture. However, don’t be fooled by the word “school”: they were circles for highly selected followers. She did not leave any written work behind. Whatever is known about her was transmitted by her disciples, among which there were many Christians. One of them, Synesius of Caesarea, would later become a bishop. According to the Platonic method (which in turn originated from the Pythagorean one) the disciples learned about “mysteries” which did not have to be disclosed to the public, because not everybody would be capable of understanding them. Hypatia was not a “pagan” intended as a worshipper of Jupiter, Juno and Mercury; in fact, as a Neo-Platonist, she was closer to Christendom than to Paganism. Indeed, she praised virtues such as virginity (she never married) and modesty in dress. But like all Neo-Platonists and Pythagoreans she maintained that philosophers, being the wisest among people, had to politicize. As a matter of fact, Orestes, the Christian prefect of Alexandria, frequently relied on her advice.

Orestes, as any Byzantine civil servant of the time, had the typical caesaropapist view of relationships with religious authorities, while Cyril the Patriarch strove to safeguard the Church’s independence from the secular power. In 414 AD their confrontation became open: Cyril sought a compromise but Orestes kept his stance. As usual, two parties were formed (something customary in ancient times; St. Ambrose from Milan knew it pretty well). Among the patriarch’s supporters, however, there were the so-called parabolani, Christians whose deeds smacked of heresy because of their fanatical search for martyrdom: they consecrated themselves by oath to undertake the care of the plagued, hoping to die for Christ this way. They were named after the ancient gladiators (abolished by Theodosius) who engaged in lion-fighting in the arena. Cyril tried to keep them under control but the city was in turmoil: in 361 AD a bishop imposed by Constantinople, George of Cappadocia, had been lynched; seven years after Hypatia’s death another bishop appointed by the Emperor, Proterius, was also killed in a popular revolt. In this environment and in this atmosphere, the blame for Orestes’ intransigence was laid on Hypatia and her advice. Rumors were spread that the “mysteries” of her school concerned magic and necromancy. She was assaulted by a mob while her slaves were carrying her on a litter, dragged down and killed. Orestes and Cyril, presented with the fait accompli and shocked by the turn that their controversy had taken, reconciled with one another. The prefect left Alexandria, perhaps to report to the Emperor. Maybe he was replaced. At any rate, he never came back.

One more thing to make clear is that Cyril had nothing against paganism, both because it was being professed by a minority and by then it was practically uninfluential, and because his main concern were Christian heresies which, at the time, sprang up at a ratio of nearly one a day. It was only years later, at the time of the rise of Julian the Apostate into power, that he took up writing again to confront the Emperor’s attempt to reinstate the ancient Roman civil religion. Neo-Platonism, with its desire to reach God through philosophy and the exercise of virtues, continued to have Alexandria as its capital up until the Islamic invasion which, by the way, was made much easier by the resentment that Roman cities in North Africa bore against the Byzantine Empire for their heavy taxation – partially justified by near-continuous wars against Persians, European Avars and Arabs – and their policy to crack down on heresies (which always found a fertile terrain in those areas). Of course all this is of no interest to the heralds of political correctness (which, as we have seen, varies from an era to another). So the pagan world is depicted as a “golden age” of science and tolerance, where people lived in harmony with nature. A world destroyed by monotheistic religions and in particular by the much hated Christendom. [...]

By Rino Cammilleri, in Il Timone, November 2009

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Palladas, INNO A HYPATIA in GREEK ANTHOLOGY, transl. and notes by Mackail, J. ed. Longmans, Green and co., London. 1890.

Sozomenus HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA ed. Migne, J. P., Patrologia Graeca vol. LXVII, Synesius di Cyrene, OPERE a cura di Garzya, Antonio, ed. UTET, Torino, 1989

Toland, John, HYPATIA, in Tetradymus, London, 1720

Wernsdorf, Ernst Friedrich, DISSERTATIO ACADEMICA IV DE HYPATIA, PHILOSOPHA ALEXANDRINA. (Vitembergae, 1747 – 1748) e DISSERTATIO III DE CAUSIS CAEDIS HYPATIAE e DISSERTATIO I DE HYPATIAE VITAE ET STUDIIS

Desmolets, Pierre Nicolas, DISSERTATION SUR HYPACE, Continuation des Memoirs de Literature et d’Histoire par le P. Desmolets. Paris, 1794, pg. 138 – 187. Hoche, Richard, HYPATIA, DIE TOCHTER THEONS, in Philologus. Zeitschrift fur das Classische Altertum. a cura di Ernst von Leutsch, XV Jahrgang, Verlag der Dieterischen Buchhandlung, Gottingen, 1860.

Johannes Nikiu, CHRONICA, Zotenberg Ethiopic Text trad. di R. H. CHARLES, D.Litt, D.D. ed. Williams & Norgate, London, 1916

Nicephorus Callistus, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Migne, J. P. Patrologia Graeca voll. CXLV - CXLVI —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hollow Man2010 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there any books about Hypatia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.45.203 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

When was Hypatia born?

The lede and the infobox don't exactly agree. --Ibn (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Her religion

In the upper section of this article it says no documentation records her religion and then in the accounts of her death the 2nd source describes her as a pagan. Shall her religion be listed as pagan then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jookieapc (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

New sections go at the bottom. Also, you mean a 7th century source, which was well after the fact. Earlier accounts do not portray her as a pagan, but a victim of ecuminical politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Where was Hypatia born?

Simply that what part of the world, as specific as possible was she born in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapblack (talk • contribs) 21:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Elliptical orbits?

In Agora (film), Hypatia is portrayed as working out that the earth moves around the sun in an elliptical orbit. Is there any validity in this? AFAICT it's completely made up. It seems like this wasn't recognized until Kepler's laws of planetary motion, much later. wiki.answers.com confirms this view, FWIW. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"the elliptical orbits discovered by Johannes Kepler 1200 years later using the mechanics of Isaac Newton." This is factually incorrect. Kepler did not use Newtonian mechanics to come up with his theory of elliptical orbits. 69.210.254.104 (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant "portrait"

Somebody again added that Fayum portrait, in the – apparently – erroneous belief it actually showed Hypatia (of which, as far as I know, there is not the tiniest bit of evidence or even probability – it's just a portrait of some other, anonymous, lady found in Fayoum). Somebody else then changed the caption to "so-called 'Portrait of Hypatia'". "So-called" by whom? Is there actually some notable tradition reflected in reliable sources, of treating this as a quasi-portrait of her, or is it, as I suspect, just an internet meme that Wikipedia has been serving to perpetuate? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Flamarande (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hypatia portraiture

I'm the "somebody" trying to maintain the el Fayum portrait over the intro. of the Raphael. Of course NEITHER is "verifiable", as there is NO known image. It is what comes closest. How Ian.thomson can say the latter is more "verifiable" I do not see!! Neither are true, both are approximations/projections of image only. Still, the projections are very telling. My arguments for maintaining the Fayum are (acknowledging the shortage of material)

1) this image is at least of Greek/Egyptian appearance and within a couple of hundred years of Hypatia's life, and from the area of domicile, unlike the Italianate representation, wholly imagined, 1,200 years later.

2) I have seen it used as an argument that the Fayum portrait has already been on the Wiki for 2 years... is this sufficient reason for its removal? Are we just looking for a change here?

3) where is the verification for the Raphael portraiture being based on an image of Hypatia: it is said to be based on a Raphael contemporary, Francesco Maria della Rovere according to the Wiki article. It is not even incontrovertibly INTENDED to be a representation of Hypatia according to the Wiki article on The School of Athens painting. I would suggest this could just as easily and more feasibly be a representation of Diotima, the absent one. The Raphael portrait has an ethereal, and at the same time proto-typical aspect to it that I find particularly insipid; it does not make one think Mathematician!

I can see I'm a lone voice here, and coming from the antipodes, and with no support to enable full participation in the argument, I can only say how disappointed I am if the Fayum image is replaced with an image of a waftish angel who does not look as though she could add one and one. It would be very good if someone COULD say where the suggestion that the Fayum portrait was thought to be Hypatia originated. That would be a step forward. But it would be equally good if it could be "verified" that the portrait thought to be Hypatia in Raphael's School of Athens, could be shown to be "verified", because neither has that been shown. Basically we have one conjecture against another... but the dates and geography make prioritisation for allocation of the Fayum over the Raphael an obvious choice.

Barroncd

I have no previous experience on Wiki editing, (I'm sure that is evident). It seems a rather fraught and anxious territory, and as I'm caring for an elderly husband with altzheimer's, I can't hope to maintain presence. I do applaud the work, it's a marvel, and wish you all the best. CDB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barroncd (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You misread me. I said on your talk page that "it is verified that the Raphael picture is accepted as representing Hypatia." The Raphael picture is supposed to represent Hypatia, according to the source given. The source is the stuff in the <ref>reference tags, these things</ref>, which says "See The School of Athens, "Who is Who?" by Michael Lahanas. See also: (in Italian) Rudi Mathematici, Unwin & Carline 2009." Both sources say "this picture is what Raphael thought Hypatia looked like." Wikipedia does not rely on personal opinion but sources. We have a source that says the Raphael pic represents Hypatia. We do not have any sources to suggest that some random woman who noone knows has anything whatsoever to do with Hypatia. Conjectures are not an issue on Wikipedia, we just go with whatever the sources (the things in the <ref>reference tags</ref>, which you can find out about here) say.

We have:

• A picture that is supposed to represent Hypatia, and a source that says the picture is supposed to represent Hypatia
• A picture of some random woman, with absolutely no sources to say that this picture has anything to do with Hypatia.

"Going with the sources" means we go with the first one. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Assertion of the image.

Thank you Ian.thomson for the references - To deal with the first and only the first - "Some consider it as" ......with no reference given as to who the "some" are, followed by a story "alleged to have" happen is not verification of anything other than a supposition has occurred.

It does NOT say "this picture is what Raphael thought Hypatia looked like" as you say it does.

You do not include the second section of your cited article, which is as follows... "Others say that the person is Francesco Maria della Rovere".

Again, my point is that as no verifiable image is available, the projected image must be of some use in clarifying what the article is about, namely Hypatia. Your preference highlights a possible problem between artist and patron in 16th century Italy, and does nothing to illuminate Hypatia's possible appearance. Perhaps if you are a recusant, or a lapsed Catholic or something, this might be of interest. Other-wise it takes it out of the world of 4th century Alexandria to a foreign world of papish wranglings.

The Fayum image does at least, I repeat, give an idea of how a personage of that era and place might have looked. The accompanying comment when the image was in use was to the effect that the image was thought to be of Hypatia. The fact that this was unsupported by scholastic inclusion is a shame certainly. But the Egyptian image, however unsubstantiated, is of more visual use than a POSSIBLE artistic projection twelve hundred years after. The image can state, a woman of the time if there is no substantiation of WHO thought it to be of Hypatia.

Please someone say how DID it appear on the article that the Fayum image was "thought to be of Hypatia". Will someone answer that ...... and then I will concede that the picture is "of some random woman" as Ian.thomson says. Why was the Egyptian picture in use for years.... and the Raphael Possible not entertained till now? I would very much like substantiation of who thought this particular Fayum image to be Hypatia and who was responsible for posting as such. This would be an important clarification. Barroncd (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barroncd (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC) <!Barroncd (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)t-->

"this picture is what Raphael thought Hypatia looked like"?! But of course not. Whoever said it was? Of course, nothing in all of this debate is about what she actually looked like, or what somebody thought she looked like. No human being for the last 1600 years has had any inkling of what she looked like. Raphael didn't "think" anything about her appearance, nor did he pretend he did. People in the Renaissance were well aware that when you paint historical personages, their appearances are fictional. Nor should Wikipedia pretend it could possibly say anything relevant about her appearance. Images are used here only because they reflect something about how later centuries viewed her.

As for your second question, about how the association with the Fayoum portrait was made: the first time I can trace this image included in this article was in an edit by Xenovatis (talk · contribs) in March 2008 [4]. He was taking it from a random webpage [5], which (correctly) identified it as the portrait of an anonymous other woman, and he also took over from that website the idea that it was "what Hypatia might have looked like". The claim that it was known as the "so-called portrait of Hypatia" was first made only a few weeks ago, by somebody who was merely trying to make some sense of its re-upload [6], but they were evidently just making it up. Other websites out there that have used the image were evidently also taking it over from either us or that other page or something similar. There is no "conjecture" that this might be her: it is known to have no relation whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hypatia to Hipparchia

Fut.Perf. If you had read my above editing talk on Hypatia you would have seen that I did NOT say "this picture is what Raphael thought Hypatia looked like". To the contrary, I was in the process of refuting the possiblity of verifiying that quotation given by Ian.thomson who cited 2 articles from the Wiki page, neither of which seem to contain same quote. Now the Wiki article has as its image caption "Hypatia as imagined by Raphael" without any verification for who thinks that so. As I say above "some consider it as" does not verify an association of the Raphael image c. Hypatia. The School of Athens article (wiki) says the link has NOT been verified. Please don't lecture me on the non-existence of image of Hypatia, when I have already said that there is no image. You do me such a disservice when you lecture me on what I have already said.

I noted your ticking off on the three-reverts rule thank you, but it does not apply to me..... I certainly did not change the image within twenty-four hours three times. Indeed I did not change the image at all at my last posting on this Talk page. I posted the comment, but did NOT change the image. I will not attempt a change of image again, it seems pointless, as within hours the image reverts to that preferred by you and your cohorts. And as I have faced nothing but misquoting and misunderstanding I will not edit further.

Thank you so much for finding where and when the supposition arose that the Fayum image was related to Hypatia. The article indeed gives nothing of whose "idea of how Hypatia may have looked" it initially was, and nothing of the time disparity.

Yet, it is hard to believe that it is as you say NOT "about what she actually looked like or what somebody thought she looked like" when the article has such a spluttering of image across it. Why then is there such a heavy burdening of image on the page?

Finally, when you say the Fayum image has "no relation whatsoever", you are speaking in the Wiki empirical sense. There is no link in the sense that the image has no author to verify it as an imagining of Hypatia. To me it gave an idea of woman of the time and place and would have been acceptable, welcome, as such. I applaud the work you verifiers do, no doubt it is a high calling, but when verification is put in opposition to truth, I wonder if the "becoming" of the article does not obscure the simple truth of its being. Peace be upon you. Barroncd (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm only speaking for myself, but I simply don't agree with the Fayum image (which has no known relationship with Hypatia whatsoever). While we can't be absolutely sure with the Rafael picture the identification with Hypatia is defended by several authors. Read the article School of Athens. On a personal note I can only wonder how many Greek female philosophers were known in the Renaissance, and who, besides Hypatia, could it be? Flamarande (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, the Wiki School of Athens article says "The identities of some philosophers in the picture, such as Plato or Aristotle, are incontrovertible.

Beyond that, identifications of Raphael's figures, even among scholars, have always been conjectural". The so-called Hypatia figure is put with those who have NOT

been verified. Who are the "several authors" that you speak of that have VERIFIED the link? I see no names, it is all speculation and hear-say. Of course, though generally

Athens School was all male, there were women involved. And as I've already said Diotima would make more sense than Hypatia in the placement.

This is beside the point. There is not enough to say that the image used to head the Hypatia page has earned the caption "Hypatia as imagined by Raphael".

No primary information has been given to warrant a verification of this. And you have not even given the names of the several authors that you suggest are there

to be cited. WHO says this is "Hypatia as imagined by Raphael". I can only find in what was put forward by Ian.thomson's citing of Michael Lahanas article

"Some consider it as"... with no mention of who "some" is. That is I would have thought too spurious for a verification. Until something more concrete is offered,

and until the Wiki article on THE SCHOOL OF ATHENS article is amended to say that Raphael is here imagining Hypatia, WHICH IT DOES NOT, the caption on the Hypatia

image heading the article should be amended to read "Hypatia as possibly imagined by Raphael", which would look ridiculous, but Proper within the wiki rules. Barroncd (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's begin with the two sources found in the article School of Athens. First, we have Michael Lahanas [7], then we a have a certain Francesco Maria I della Rovere [8]. Apparently they defend that the female figure is Hypatia. By all means please check them out and tell me later if you find something fishy. Do you dispute the sources' credibility? Do you have any credible source that disputes this identification? Are you able to provide credible sources that identify the woman with Diotima of Mantinea (or any other female philosopher)? If you're able to do that the first picture in this article "here" will be removed and the article School of Athens gets improved. Nevertheless the Fayum image will NOT replace it (we will probably use the second painting) unless someone finds a very credible source vouching for it. Flamarande (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC) PS: Please do me a small favour, and don't include soo many 'double empty spaces' inside of your sentences.

As far as I understand the references, most of the Raphael story is pretty uncontentious: there are unambiguous reports that he meant to include a Hypatia (possibly in a slightly different position at first), and it seems generally agreed that after whatever last-minute changes he made because of the intervention of his client, the original Hypatia figure ended up as the figure we are now talking about. The only disagreement in modern interpretation that I can find is whether he really meant to have the final figure understood as actually representing somebody else, or whether he just employed the trick of slightly changing the composition and using a different model, but it's essentially still supposed to be her (or perhaps he only wanted his client to think of her as somebody else?). I must admit I hadn't paid too much attention to these things prior to this debate, and I'd have no problem about hedging our caption somewhat accordingly. – BTW, you also asked why we have so many other pictures. The reason seems to be mainly that we once had one contributor who had a rather strong preference for including whatever he could. I personally have argued for removing at least the 1906 book illustration drawing, which I find is artistically worthless kitsch and without any information value. Finally, one last point about the Fayoum portrait: we have a real responsibility of preventing misunderstandings from spreading further. There are now dozens of web pages out there whose authors have apparently taken Wikipedia's invented attribution at face value, and treated it as if it really was a portrait of her, and from there this belief has even got mirrored back into Wikipedia and was very much in danger of getting further entrenched. Wikipedia is powerful; just two years of having a questionable image displayed here, and everybody out there starts taking it for granted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To Flamarande: just to avoid a misunderstanding: "Francesco Maria I della Rovere" isn't a modern author; it's the name of the 15-year-old boy who Raphael may have used as a model for his modified Hypatia composition, to make her presence more palatable to the Pope. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm honestly unable to recall asking about the many pictures of this article (but that's not that important). Let resume your post above: you argue that the story about Hypatia in the School of Athens is known. There is some doubt if the female figure was supposed to be Hypatia as Rafael was painting the fresco, but there seems to be no doubt that he identified the female figure as being Hypatia after finishing the fresco (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

Another thing: AFAIK the Fayum picture was added into this article in November of 2010 [9], not two years ago. The blame for that misidentification does not seem to lie with Wikipedia, but somewhere else.

I'm quite ignorant about Renaissance frescos, however the link seems to be a second source. Don't forget if someone disputes the Rafael/Hypatia identification he will need to provide credible sources.

You seem to defend that the Fayum picure is unacceptable for this article. I can only agree. Flamarande (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC) PS: I wish to make clear that I like the Rafael/Hypatia fresco and that I don't like the Fayum image (it seems to be an ignorant Internet meme which has to be fought with extreme prejudice). However if someone provides credible sources stating that the female figure is NOT Hypatia we will remove it from this article without mercy (and improve the article School of Athens). It's all a matter of credible sources.

I've seen 15 pages of web articles and if they don't carry the Fayum image they carry the "Hypatia imagined by Raphael" with no more substance than Lahanas' "some think it is....".

I own the Harvard text - Maria Dzielska's "HYPATIA of Alexandria" trans., F Lyra, pub., 1995. In 150 pp. there are no images, and no mention of Raphael. I have to ask if the images do anything for the Wiki article. I find the lot of them "worthless kitsch", and in the case of the Raphael, confusing and suspect.

Flamarande. I've stated over and over that I read the Lahanas, and yes, I do require more than "some think" in an article. That is NOT scholarship worthy of any establishment. You cannot accept "some think..." and "it is alleged" very often accompanying the Raphael story, as sufficient "verification". I'm shocked!

As victim of the erroneously captioned Fayum, I will never again trust a Wiki caption without scrutiny. I do require "hedging" of the Hyp/Raph caption, or some qualification at least.

Incidentally, there is a huge bibligraphy by Howard A. Landman "Books on Hypatia of Alexandria" missing on the Wiki page, a serious omission. It would give the wiki page the depth and tone that is so obviously missing. Barroncd (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO you're comparing two different situations. The Fayum picture was proven to be wrong already (the picture wasn't known under the name "Portrait of Hypatia of Alexandra" at all). The Rafael/Hypatia seems to be credible (to me at least). You have read the Lahanas' site; how about the [10]? Is it in your opinion a credible source or not? I can only strongly advise you to find a credible source which states that the female figure isn't Hypatia (or could be someone else). Do you have any credible source which states that woman in the School of Athens is Diotima of Mantinea (or any other female scholar)?

If she isn't Hypatia then we're dealing with a major fabrication here: I particularly find this site [11] extremely compelling. All the background (particularly the different sketches, the story of the bishop, the list of sources at the end).

It doesn't surprise me that many books about Hypatia don't mention Rafael's fresco. After all the books are about Hypatia and not about Rafael or his fresco, the School of Athens.

If you're interested in improving this article with Howard A. Landman's "Books on Hypatia of Alexandria" then by all means you can certainly improve the article (with proper citations of the book). However you have to realize that pictures are widely considered a valuable part of Wiki-articles. Most of them will remain because ppl like them (unless we can prove that they aren't meant to be Hypatia at all).

To Fut.Perf.: I've looked a bit more closely at the article's history and it seems that the Fayum picture-mistake began innocently enough in 27 March 2008 [12]. Wikipedia seems to carry some of the blame after all. Flamarande (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Fayum pic that I found a week ago on Wiki:Hypatia read "thought to be...". It didn't dawn on me that it was a present-day Wiki compiler who thought it to be, though it explains why the page is heavily weighted image-wise toward the modern. Re. the Raph. pic. caption, it should be tweaked to acknowledge that 1) Lahanas says "Some consider it as Hypatia", and 2) the story however relevant to Hypatia's demise (religion vs science) is only an "alleged" story, and not history, and thus must be classified unverified leading to immediate amendment of the present caption. (I can't read the rudimath, sorry, I don't have Italian, but there are no footnotes in the article which leads me to suspect it unsourced). The New Banner (Ayn Rand) site also says the story "is alleged to have" happen like every other article. The Landman biblio page (that includes the wonderful Michael Deakin biblio. from Monash University here in Melboure), is included on this New Banner page that Flamarande likes so much. Could Flamarande post the Landman biblio on the Wiki:Hypatia page please. I've no idea how to do it. It's been an interesting but frustrating journey. Best wishes.Barroncd (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Barroncd (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Barroncd with respect to this. I brought it up on the fringe theory noticeboard, because the problem is not only here, but this picture is used on many other places as a representation of Hypatia. I do indeed believe that 'we're dealing with a major fabrication here' as Flamerande says. Gesellschaftsspiel (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is from bildindex.de (Deutsches Dokumentationszentrum für Kunstgeschichte - Bildarchiv Foto Marburg) about the iconography of the "School of Athens":

Ikonographie (Iconclass)

• 49 C 21 * philosophische Disziplinen
• 98 B (ARISTOTLE) 9 * Porträts männlicher Personen der klassisch-antiken Geschichte
• 98 B (PLATO) 9 * Porträts männlicher Personen der klassisch-antiken Geschichte
• 98 B (SOCRATES) 9 * Porträts männlicher Personen der klassisch-antiken Geschichte
• 98 B (XENOPHON) 9 * Porträts männlicher Personen der klassisch-antiken Geschichte
• 98 B (ZENON) 9 * Porträts männlicher Personen der klassisch-antiken Geschichte
• 98 B (HERACLITUS) 9 * Porträts männlicher Personen der klassisch-antiken Geschichte
• 98 B (EPICURUS) 9 * Porträts männlicher Personen der klassisch-antiken Geschichte
• 98 B (PYTHAGORAS) 9 * Porträts männlicher Personen der klassisch-antiken Geschichte
• 61 B 2 (AVERROES) 22 * fiktive Szene, in der mindestens eine Person (mit NAMEN) mitwirkt
• 98 B (DIOGENES) 9 * Porträts männlicher Personen der klassisch-antiken Geschichte
• 98 B (EUCLIDES) 9 * Porträts männlicher Personen der klassisch-antiken Geschichte
• 98 B (ZOROASTRES) 9 * Porträts männlicher Personen der klassisch-antiken Geschichte
• 98 B (PTOLEMY) 9 * Porträts männlicher Personen der klassisch-antiken Geschichte
• 61 B 2 (MICHELANGELO BUONARROTI) 13 * Person (mit NAMEN) in einer Gruppe, in einem Gruppenporträt
• 61 B 2 (LEONARDO DA VINCI) 13 * Person (mit NAMEN) in einer Gruppe, in einem Gruppenporträt
• 48 C 51 3 : * Porträt, Selbstporträt eines Malers
• 61 B 2 (RAFFAEL) 13 * Person (mit NAMEN) in einer Gruppe, in einem Gruppenporträt

• sekundär:

• 92 B 3 * die Geschichte des Apollo (Phoebus)
• 92 C 2 * die Geschichte der Minerva (Pallas, Athene)

So no Hypatia here. If you look up Hypatia, the only reference is to a 'History of Astromony' from around 1700 in a private Roman palazzo (Palazzo Patrizi), where she figures. Unfortunately, there's no picture available online. Gesellschaftsspiel (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced (I've been looking through the web in an effort to find credible sources) that the figure has NOT been identified as Hypatia as far credible sources are concerned. I even found one source that clearly named all the figures that have been identified and which ended stating that the others were speculated upon (I'm unable to find it today). Some credible sources state that the figure is Francesco Maria I della Rovere. I have been unable any credible source which stated that the figure is Hypatia. My best links are [13] [14], [15], [16], [17]. I have even found a source by someone which speculates about some figures but he clearly states that the figure is identified as Francesco Maria I della Rovere page9. To cut things short: We don't have any credible source stating that the figure is Hypatia. We have several credible sources stating that the figure is Francesco Maria I della Rovere. We have to remove the picture and replace it with the painting below.

Gesellschaftsspiel, if you can please provide a direct link to the Ikonographie above. Flamarande (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC) PS: There is the very faint possibility that the figure is Francesco Maria I della Rovere "disguised" as Hypatia (or vice-versa). However this possibility needs credible sources, FIRST.

Sorry, I couldn't find a direct link, this seems to be some kind of database and really difficult to navigate, I'm afraid. You can search for 'Raphael' (Neue Suche), then 'Schule' (with Suche verfeinern=narrow search) then some black & white pictures of Raphael's school of Athens come up. Then the icon that looks like a sheet of paper with lines with the Tooltip 'Datenblatt anzeigen' (=show technical data) below the picture brings up the iconography.

Another good, though quite dated, source I could find online is Luitpold Dussler: Raphael. A Critical Catalogue of his Pictures, London and New York, 1971 (original German 1966), p 73f. who writes

"According to Vasari, a likeness of Federigo II, Duke of Mantua, can be found in the young man bending over with arms outstretched behind the figure of Euclid (see Golzio, p. 24: letter from Grossino to Isabella d’Este, 16 August 1511); Luzio, however, suggests that this prince may be portrayed in the head of the young boy looking from behind the old oriental on the left, a supposition which is not to be ruled out (Luzio-Renier, Mantova e Urbino, Turin 1893, p. 189, Note, and p. 200, Note). There is much less justification for identifying the young man in white (behind the philosopher standing to write) as Francesco Maria della Rovere, for the head has none of the characteristics of a portrait." Gesellschaftsspiel (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I find the story of this fabrication of Raffael's Hypatia an interesting thing to follow in its own right. My working hypothesis at the moment is that the 'newbanner.com' institute is to blame. If I interpret the internet-archive correctly, the page with the original (if that's right) Hypatia-thesis was online from April 2002: [[18] (link to web.archive.org). From there it seems to have spread to Lehanas ([19], online August 2004) and all the wikis. There are even serious books now that mention it. One funny, or sad, fact: the spanish edition of Maria Dzielska's 'Hypatia of Alexandria' has it on the cover [20] (5th edition 2009), the 2nd edition 2006 had a statue of Themis and some acanthus leaves on it [21].

In Dzielska's book it says copyright 'Alinari Archives, Florencia' so it seems it must have been sold as a picture of Hypatia to the publisher. Gesellschaftsspiel (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative images

I have no objections against demoting the Raphael from the infobox – but the Mitchell painting is not a good alternative either, in my view. It's hideously poor art, and representative neither of any realistic idea of what she actually was like, nor of how history has traditionally seen her. Seriously, I'd prefer having no image up there at all. None of the alternatives are in any way satisfactory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mitchell's painting isn't that bad and we could leave it there. The photographs are ubsuitable but a painting is IMHO acceptable. Notice that the Hypatia, stripped and before her murderers, does indeed alude to her death. Flamarande (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well all I can say is, she looks pretty good for 60!!! The present assemblage of image gives some note as to recent thought re. Hypatia, but nothing helpful, and a lot to embarrass. I have to agree with FutPerf., it would be preferable to have no image at all. I mean if you're going to have the clottage you have there now, why not include a picture of Rachel Weisz, it's as relevant as the other pics., but makes a laughing-stock of the whole idea of imagining and image in relation to what is known of the subject. I'd venture to say that any serious work on her does NOT include image because it serves NO purpose. Flamarande's reason for inclusion is, he states above, because the reader likes it. Wrong! The provision of NO image would allow Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle full rein, and that would be wholly appropriate in relation to the subject. Barroncd. 59.101.247.240 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, little is exactly known of her age, wheter if she was 40 or 60 when she died to undefined. Otherwise, it is all circumstancial when it involves her appearence to graphic representation. The fayum I have place to covey Hypatia's probable appearence is likely the most accurate, since it is the closest account to her time of when she existed, and within the boundary of generations who would known her exact visage and facial complexion. There is a citation regarding the image itself, and I hope this community takes my contribution under serious consideration and analyst, instead of holding their own personal opinion of pratling on the edit toolbar like some highly crazed monkey. 137.122.255.226 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the basic fact: the Fayoum image is known to have no relation to Hypatia whatsoever. It is not "within the boundary of generations who would known her exact visage and facial complexion" – it is from before her time. It is a burial portrait of some other, entirely unrelated lady, who lived in a different city of Egypt and one or two centuries before her. Nobody has ever claimed this portrait was intended to show Hypatia, or even that it might possibly be her. The link between that portrait and her has been entirely the result of a misunderstanding among a few Wikipedia editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nebulous terms

>Although Hypatia's death has been interpreted by some as an example of conflict between religion and scientific inquiry, contemporary historians of science have a different view: she essentially got caught up in a political struggle. In the words of David Lindberg, "her death had everything to do with local politics and virtually nothing to do with science".

This doesn't make much sense. Religion and politics are not part of an inconsistent set. Local politics are generally always influenced by religion. So I don't see how saying it was the result of political struggles in any way negates that it was also a conflict between Hypatia, her science and philosophy, and the new religion. Could a less nebulous term than "politics" be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemonax (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the important things to say are: (1) There was a political struggle that lead to Hypatia's death. (2) This political struggle was unrelated with science... To make things more clear, maybe we should say something like: Contemporary historians of science say the political struggle in which Hypatia got caught up was not related with scientific ideas. In the words of David Lindberg, "her death had everything to do with local politics and virtually nothing to do with science". --Leinad-Z (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hypatia's mother/ early childhood

I have found no reference anywhere to Hypatia's mother or her early childhood. Is there any known information on these two topics?207.118.15.7 (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)E.F.

i don't know of any, check a library somewhere or try mac tutor Kazumooo (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)kazumooo

My first thought would be a database like JSTOR, however this could be one of the many things that has not been passed down through history and nobody today knows the answer. 76.121.9.223 (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Mitch, History of Mathematics student at Saint Martin's University

There is no reason to expect there would be any such information. Very, very few ancient figures have information about their childhood (usually just those who were the object of detailed literary biographies or hagiographies, and even then the accounts of their childhood are often semi-fictional). This [22] article gives an exhaustive account of all the ancient sources we have about her. If none of them talks about her childhood, then that's that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dating system

Per WP:ERA, we're supposed to whichever dating system was used earliest and used longest, since they're the best indicators of consensus.

The earliest version was AD, not CE. However WP:ERA acknowledges that WP:Consensus can change. DianaGaleM has changed it to CE, and while I think it's appropriate (as Hypatia was not a Christian), we should establish consensus here.

• Support - Hypatia was not a Christian, so it doesn't make sense to use a dating era specifically acknowledging Jesus as our Lord (this coming from someone who does). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Hypatia certainly wasn't a Christian but what has that to do with anything (is that even an argument)? Neither was Julius Caesar nor Alexander the Great. We are NOT going to balkanize the English wiki along religious lines. We are simply going to use the most common form in the English language and like it or not that means BC/AD. This article began with BC/AD and there is no credible reason for a change towards BCE/CE. DianaGaleM simply changed the system against WP:ERA and such behaviour shouldn't be rewarded (this coming from an atheist). Flamarande (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - using BCE/CE isn't "balkaniz[ing] the English wiki along religious lines." It is adopting the presently-developing consensus within the scholarly community. BC/AD is a temporary and local phenomenon, dating from the 9th century through the 20th century in the christianized west. Revanneosl (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hypatia not Greek?

This source provides evidence that Hypatia was of African origin. Lumpkin provides evidence that Hypatia was not Greek and instead was an Egyptian and thus of African origin. It seems that contrary to the customs of Greek women at that time, "Hypatia remained unmarried and moved freely and publicly in her scientific pursuits" (Lumpkin, 1988, p. 155).

We certainly know who her father was. I am not aware of her mother's nationality. The argument above has a fallacy however because the way Hypatia chose to live her life may have nothing to do with her nationality. On what is Lumpkin basing her statement? 23x2 _φ 11:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we even have any reasons to assume that "Greek" and "Egyptian" were considered two distinct ethnicities at her time? ("Nationality" is a mis-nomer here anyway.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they made a distinction, but I'm not sure if it was a distinction that was important. Cleopatra was a native Greek speaker, so she was "Greek", but to everyone from Caesar to us, she was above all "Egyptian", albeit one who spoke "Egyptian" only as a second language.--Mlewan (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Era style

According to the Manual of Style (WP:ERA), the BCE/CE Common Era style should be used in this article instead of the BC/AD Anno Domini style. It stands to reason that if the date format, MDY versus DMY, is supposed to vary if an article has a strong national tie (WP:STRONGNAT), then an article that has a strong tie to the scholarly/scientific community should make use of their preferred Common Era style over the Anno Domini style that is the preferred for articles of Christian topics. Sg647112c (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No. The main aim of the WP:ERA policy is to stop exactly what you are doing here now: drive-by changes made by a single editor's whim and personal preference, which will never have any effect but to lead to endless, fruitless debates. The policy very deliberately did not define any such concept as being "strongly tied to the scholarly/scientific community" that makes either this or that format compulsory. It opted not to do that precisely in order to not give editors like you a pretext for going round changing things. Moreover, you overlooked that bit in the policy that very clear says: "discuss first". Discussing first is not the same thing as making a post on a talkpage and then making your preferred change five minutes later, without waiting for feedback. You know, there's such a thing as listening that's also involved in "discussing". Please self-revert. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Versions of the article from 2007 use the CE dates. A single "drive-by editor" must have changed it to AD on a "whim" to his/her "personal preference". The change back to CE was the revert. 50.200.187.51 (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Versions of this article dating back to Nov 13th 2002 use the proper format of the gregorian calendar AD/BC as it should. The change to CE was an arbitrary change against the original format of the article and without consensus. This article should stick to the original format of the Gregorian calendar that is being used. Monsieur Voltaire (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Change it back then, if you want to.

The point of WP:ERA is that neither style is officially preferred on a global level. Scientific articles tend to prefer the CE/BCE dates, religious and ancient history articles tend to prefer BC/AD. Personally, I don't understand what the CE/AD fuss is about; if people are mad that we're dating from (admittedly a few years away from) the birth of Christ, just changing the name and still dating from the same year doesn't change matters any. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

So the argument for using "CE" dates is that it is the tagging used by scholars, scientists, historians, and Humanists - the people who will be reading this article. Whereas the argument for using "AD" dates is what exactly? The propagation of a mistake? It seems like the "drive-by editor" accusations are always being leveled against the change to CE, while the exact same changes to AD are just shrugged off - an interesting bias for Wikipedia to have...

66.189.77.46 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Very tiresome. Chips off shoulders, please. WP:ERA used to say that to avoid pointless era style-warring, an article's original era convention should not be changed. That was an easy if tedious matter of searching through the edit history to find the first instance of era designation as either BC/AD or BCE/CE. However, it currently prescribes the "established" style. That muddies the waters for this article considerably. If the era style was BC/AD since 2007, does that mean it's "established"? Surely four or five years in the short life of Wikipedia is fairly well established. Precisely why I objected to the change of wording. Some editors who regularly contribute to topics pertaining to Greco-Roman antiquity prefer and consistently use BCE/CE; others, BC/AD. None AFAIK wishes to impose his or her preferred era convention with brutal uniformity on the thousands of articles within the scope of the Classical Greece & Rome project, as this would be contrary to the classical value of tolerance. The only question for the Hypatia article is: what is the established era style? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, very tiresome. In this case, the history is pretty muddy: the first introduction of era strings (AD) was in November 2002 [23]. This was removed in December 2003 [24]. A "CE" was added in April 2004 and removed again in June 2004 [25]. Then the article seems to have lived without any era markers for a while. In February 2007 both one "CE" [26] and one "AD" [27] were added by two different users on the same day, just a few hours apart. A few weeks later, somebody regularized towards "AD" [28]. Ever since then, it seems to have been AD, with few or no attempts to change them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, confused though this is, to me BC/AD emerges as the "established" style: it was used first, and it's been the style used in the article for the longest period of time. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Two points:

1. "Do not change the established era style in an article … Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. …" —WP:ERA I prefer using (B)CE, but AD/BC have become established here. Perhaps the ADs shouldn't have been changed from CEs; perhaps that too was a change from its original state. Whatever the case, several years passed without any challenge to the current era style. If anyone wants to change the now established era style, they must seek consensus.
2. Why is this article filled with "AD x" dates? Hypatia was born in 350, well within the current era. Usage of AD/CE is only needed to clarify dates which may otherwise be ambiguous. The first line, starting "Hypatia (ca. AD 350–370–8 March 415) …", should be more than enough to establish that she was in the current era.

 —Sowlos  09:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

So, despite the fact that the people for whom this article was written use CE, the self-appointed editors here will continue to hold to their preferred AD dates regardless of how little sense that it makes. Fantastic! I hod no idea that there was immutable dogma in Wikipedia. I can only hope that I don't get burned at the stake, or flayed like Hypatia.66.189.77.46 (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This article should be reverted to AD/BC as it is the first dating nomenclature applied to the article and consensus has not been achieved for a change. This is the proper dating system of the Gregorian calendar and it is silly to use any newly contrived and politically correct notation. People seem to only mention the rules when the rules favor their desires.Monsieur Voltaire (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Exact death date

In April [29], an anon editor added an alleged exact death date ("8 March 415"), ostensibly sourced to this book [30]. No page number is given and I cannot check the book online, but the claim appears dubious to me. Since the totality of what can be known historically about her life is contained in just the two primary sources our article talks about, and they are already quoted verbatim in our article, I really don't see where anybody could possibly get such a date from. Also, I can't find any confirmation of such a date anywhere else. Can somebody check whether that book really makes such a claim, if yes, what it is based on, and whether the book counts as a reliable source?

I'm removing the claim until this is clarified; nothing is lost if such a detail remains out of the article for a while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The History Channel claims the same date [31] 173.210.13.250 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule, if the history channel says it, it is probably false. They are well known for their broadcasts of nonsense, half truths and "reality" tv. Second Quantization (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Two sources or three?

The article quotes in depth from two sources, Socrates Scholasticus, writing in the years just after Hypatia's death and John of Nikiu writing some centuries later. But then in the "Legacy" section, we are told that Damascius write of the events as well. Although writing a few generations after the death, he is still closer in time then John of Nikiu. He is portrayed as partisan, but the the same is also true of the other sources. So why are they (particularly the much later John) given such extensive play in the article and Damascius a marginal and qualified mention?TheCormac (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"The mystery of Hypatia's murder was solved by A. Belenkiy in 2010"

Re this edit [32], I have read Ari Belenkiy's article. His argument is that she was killed because of a dispute over the dating of Easter, in which she participated by giving astronomical data to one side of the dispute, which contradicted the dating asserted by the Alexandrian church and thus threatened its 'supremacy'. It's all pure supposition. Not a shred of real evidence is provided, so to say that the article "solved" the "the mystery of Hypatia's murder" is hyperbole. It's not a silly article though. Pure speculation, but not obvious fringe. I don't think the Astronomy & Geophysics journal can be RS for ancient history, but it might be worth mentioning the hypothesis, while making it clear that it's speculation on top of supposition. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Barlow. To outright assert that Belenkiy "solved" her murder is not correct. He made a speculative argument supporting his idea but this is not a solving, it's merely an interesting possibility. I don't see anything wrong with citing his work, but I do object to making the statement "her murder was solved". It is not solved. Stellabystarlight (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed- and that would be pretty obvious to most; yet I note the edit is being persistently reinserted. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that Belenkiy later changed his mind in favor of a March 415 date. See here. Neither can be considered definitive. The fact is that there is not enough evidence to resolve this question with certainty. Zero^talk 22:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)