Talk:Michael Rostovtzeff

Stub or not stub?

There's a lot more could be said about Rostovtzeff, even in encyclopaedia article. It's coming, just gimme some time. As for the definition of stub, I'm not sure. --Barbatus 03:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Biblio vs. Bio

Corrected Biblio to Bio, and corrected punctuation of journal article titles. I will do a search for his works to at least start the Bib ASAP, now I know it's needed.--Tygerbryght 08:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You corrected what? This is a bibliography, that is, a list of books and articles. Major Rostovtzeff's works are listed in the article, but feel free to add any material about him you can find (preferrably in available publications). --Barbatus 15:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but a list of books by the subject of the article is bibliography. A list of books about the person is biography, or biography resource material. All of the books listed are by persons other than Rostovtzeff.

Ask any Engish major, or person who has either written or word-processed scholarly stuff. Once you've verified that, I'd appreciate your reverting the page. I won't work on a page where I have to argue about stuff where I know I'm right. If you need better proof, consult any manual of style. --Tygerbryght 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Margaret Mead. I would readily compromise on titling the section you(?) made References, rather than Biography, since it is not a narration, but a listing of sources. --Tygerbryght 21:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only style guide I have here at hand is the 14th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style. Section 1.88 (p. 37), Bibliography or Reference List:

The form of a bibliography or list of references varies with the nature of the book, the inclination of the author, and often the guidance of the publisher. It may be a single listing of sources, arranged alphabetically by author. It may be broken into sections, by subject or by kinds of materials (primary and secondary sources, etc.). It may be a selected bibliography (preferable, as a rule, in a published book as opposed to a doctoral dissertation). [...]

So it is called Bibliography (or 'Reference List'), but not 'Biography.' If you insist on 'Reference List', or 'References', it's fine by me. Besides, these articles and books about Rostovtzeff are not necessarily biographical. --Barbatus 00:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Rostovtzeff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050831151822/http://www.telemaco.unibo.it:591/michele/home.html to http://www.telemaco.unibo.it:591/michele/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Rostovtzeff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170511102454/http://www.academia.edu/9346956/M.I._Rostovtzeff_His_Life_and_Major_Works to https://www.academia.edu/9346956/M.I._Rostovtzeff_His_Life_and_Major_Works

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Lack of basis for the critique

The page mostly dismisses the work of Rostovtzeff. ("… importation of those terms into a description of the ancient world, where they did not necessarily apply, caused criticism" and "Rostovtzeff's theories in this area continue to be rejected by scholars as untenable".) This on the basis of the opinion of one single author, Bowersock. I am absolutely not a specialist of the economy of Ancient Greece or of Rome. Bowersock may be right, but then it should be possible to cite more authors. Otherwise, it may reflect mostly the personal opinion of the one who wrote the critique on this page. Also, this is supposed to be consensus "today". But a 1974 "today" seems a bit far away. Many readers of this page were not yet born. For short, this looks little encyclopedic, little wikipediaic. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)