Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Working towards consensus

Wikipedia actually has a project designated for reporting pederastic activity. I had reported Haiduc for a number of issues but they declined to intervene. The fact is, we as a group are limited to what actions we can take and that may be for the best. But the real problems created by agenda driven editors is the problem that faces the members here.

How to best deal with articles is to work together and not to attempt to overstep our boundaries as members and not move so quickly as to become a concern to others as well. I also believe we have to listen to all the cautions of those that may not agree even if, in the long run, consensus is against them. Reactionary editing can be as bad as agenda driven editing and that is a criticism we must be aware of.

Having said that, I believe consensus has been reached for the page split and I have begun work to do just that. A

has been placed on the article and the disambiguation page has been properly moved to the correct title for that page. The new article will simply bee Hoop.

The spit requires some work to keep it within policy and is not that difficult and can be carried out by an established editor. All work by all editors will be respected and all procedures for article splitting will be carried out as methodicaly as possible and not rushed through.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'll step out of the current debate. But I hope to see collective action some day about a problem that won't go away unless we take some collective steps to prevent it. Please don't bother to reply to this. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to reply. I don't think aggressive and confrontational discussion is helpful and creates havoc within the project. I commend you for your efforts and your desire to clean up the Haiduc mess created over years, I just don't know what it is you want to do. Perhaps the creation of a separate project; Wiki Project Clean-up Haidac legacy would be something you are looking for, but within the project scope the only other thing that could be done and it would require the consensus of the members is a section within the project page to a list and cleanup tools specifically geared towards a review of historic pederastic articles, but to gear it towards a specific member seems a bit pitchfork of torches. Yes the Haiduc legacy is something I think the project members should be aware of and I would hope they are willing to help where they can. However the subject is not easily covered and research can be daunting due to conflicting information and people can be uncomfortable with dealing with these subjects.

Don't give up. And I don't understand your current annoyance, I, more than anyone else seem to be working towards much of your goal of cleaning up the Haiduc mess. Do you have a better idea?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing where I am being aggressive and confrontational here. I am dealing with a separate issue elsewhere and I expect it to be solved elsewhere. I said above, we all have to take responsibility for Haiduc's behaviour. My fault was, I was content to deal with him on my own patch, which at that time was the Solon article. I should have been looking further afield to see what was happening so I could help out elsewhere. There are many issues that have to be considered by this project. Articles within the scope of this project offered Haiduc unique opportunities to spread the gospel of pederasty, since he could exploit ancient sources that paint a pretty picture of the subject and he could berate other editors who resisted his edits because they could see where he was headed. We need ideas about how to deal with that situation in future. Pederasty is part of the historical record and it must be mentioned where it is relevant but not in such a way as to promote it as a lifestyle choice. I mentioned above also the possibility of designing a gateway article to the subject of pederasty, where other projects could link into the subject of pederasty in a way that prevents readers being assailed with graphic images. They could then follow the gateway links to research further, if they want. Haiduc was using the Hoops article with links to the same confronting image - a classical brainwashing technique, especially for young readers. We also have to decide on a collective approach to articles created by Haiduc. A special project sounds appropriate. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a site for campaigning against lifestyle choices, any more than for campaigning for them. You have driven Haiduc away, for reasons (whatever they were) that seemed good to ArbCom. Declare victory and go home; let articles on Athenian culture and manners be edited by people who push neither modern agenda, but intend to say how things actually were. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn’t agree more. I never thought I would live to see the sanctioned operation of mob rule in these pages. A gifted and erudite writer and scholar has been trampled on for political and moral reasons. Grievances could have been dealt with in a more enlightened way. Promotion of knowledge is surely sacrosanct whether it overlaps the controversial, the uncomfortable or the unthinkable. Criticism yes, but let us confine demonising to the medieval past... which it seems is still alive and well in the 21st century. Dominique (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pederasty is not a lifestyle. It was not so for the ancients and to believe anyone here has been campaigning against such is not based on fact.

There are others that have a different "View" of the history of Greek, Roman and revival pederstic educational relationships. Some take a very philosophic approach and others a more practical and direct approach. But whether we like it or not many people feel strongly that there is indeed a pederastic promotive effort by some members of the Wikipedia community and some wish to deal with that by keeping an eye on certain articles and some by actively working through as many of the edits and articles as possible. My problem with the member was that he didn't work well with community and that is a lesson we should all take a hard look at.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend a reading of Book XII of the Greek Anthology in an unexpurgated edition; Plato's Symposium (especially the sections dealing with Alcibiades) may be easier to come by. In the meantime, let me just say that Amadscientist is either expressing himself extremely unclearly, is using "pederasty" in a sense which somehow excludes paiderasteia, or is deeply mistaken. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What is it you feel I am mistaken about? Are you suggesting to the project that Pederasty is a lifestyle simply by using the Greek term and telling us I am excluding it? I don't know what it is exactly that you object to.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pederasty is not a lifestyle. It was not so for the ancients and to believe anyone here has been campaigning against such is not based on fact. That is either excessively obscure, based on a private definition, or plain wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Pederasty is NOT a lifestyle. It is not legal in ANY English Country. Noone is attacking a lifestyle. What may be true is that you wish others to agree that pederasty IS a lifestyle. But, this is not a consensus issue.

A lifestyle is defined as choice. I may be gay without choice, but my lifestyle is. I choose to live the "Lifestyle" of a gay man by living in a samesex relationship. Children do not have the capacity to make these choices either legally or maturely enough to make informed decisions. Over the age of 18 and you may still have a pederastic relationship but you cannot live it as a lifestyle....because the younger one will age out of the pederastic age definition, plain and simple. So in order to continue any kind of pederastic lifestyle you would have to continue new relationships specifically geared at a specific age and well....most people call that a predator.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to get much involved in this discussion. However, I have to take issue with this comment. A lifestyle, in the study of history, is not defined as a choice: even with our modern individualistic private liberties, we know that the style in which we live our lives is not entirely private or entirely chosen (it also of course includes many things "grown out of": e.g. attending school dances). In historical scholarship, English "lifestyle" often corresponds to French "moeurs" (Latin "mores": "customs"). For example, in his standard textbook Early Greece, Oswyn Murray has a chapter entitled "Life Styles: The Aristocracy." While I haven't read it recently, I'd be surprised if it did not mention pederasty. Pederastic relationships can, and sometimes have, been mainstream features of a culture's mores. It is perfectly legitimate to argue from a moral point of view that this is as barbarous as a set of customs and a style of life that include master-slave relationships (that's the argument that I'm trying to steer clear of). "Most people call" slave ownership by some pretty foul names, I hope, and yet I hope we can all agree that Slavery in antiquity would not be improved as an encyclopedic treatment if we were to turn it into an abolitionist rant. (P.S. What is legal or not in "ANY English Country" is not a useful or appropriate measuring stick to figure out the scope of the historical study of human customs in their cultural contexts.) Wareh (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with nearly everything you have stated except for a few things. A lifestyle as I understand how you define it is not a choice, but it is. I am not talking about anything that is unable to be altered, such as the attraction or the need to satisfy a sexual urge, but as far as a "Lifestyle" it is something that is choosen. That is the very deffinition of lifestyle. One cannot have a pederastic lifestyle, not just because it is not legal. I stated that because iot is not and is but one good reason....but again a lifestyle cannot be choosen by the younger if they are not old enough to make these decisions. An As I said to keep having relationship after relationship with a certain age group is not lifestyle it is a fetish. The Greek Lifestyle may have included pederasty but it was not the main emphasis. But the most important thing I can reply to is your comment about "historical study of human customs". There is no moral objection to pederasty as a subject or an article as long as it, like any other article, is not pushing personal agendas that use references to stretch facts and promote something that is not accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please keep out of classical articles. You make it clearer with each post that you are fighting an agenda - and by the same token imposing the contrary agenda. Wikipedia is not a battlefield - and that, again, is policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with Wareh and the bracingly blunt PMA. The kind of language you're using imposes modern value judgments on ancient culture. It is a form of intellectual censorship that arises from the culture of fear (a long but extremely interesting essay from one of the contrarians at spiked-online.com). Modern pedophilia and ancient pederasty are not the same thing, and you can't control anxieties about the former by distorting or ameliorating or suppressing the latter. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are opinions all over the internet and fighting against agendas is what many on wiki do. To keep the encyclopedia honest and accurate.

I could care less about anyone here who may think I have a problem of fear because I will not tolerate a blurring of pedophelia and pederasty. I have not imposed a modern value, but it appears that some hear would rather blast those who do not tolerate the use of historic wiki pages for political or social agendas beyond the facts as supported by references. No one has the right to tell another member to stay out of articles and that shows more about the one making such an outrageousde demand then any fingure pointing and labeling.

I have never placed a modern value on an ancient culture. That is simply not true. The amount of research I have given to the subject shows that many are making huge leaps themselves about both what a pederast is and what a pedophile is. I believe people are trying to hard to think of them in similar terms and that is what is incorrect. But there are still those that use these articles as supposition and essay like articles to further what they believe is true as well....but relying on either no inline citations or misleading refernces. I don't care about axieties about the subjects. Not from those living in fear of touching something that is too far removed from themselves or about the fears of morality. Morality has no issue here. History does, so please spare me the reverse morality of telling anyone what they should believe or understand in regards to these subjects. Keep them factual and referenced and there should be no problem as long as other peoples standards are not being pushed against consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, if we have mistaken your purpose, correct us, because I for one just do not see what you're saying. Could you clarify what you think is the correct way to describe the erastes-eromenos relationship, or ancient Greek pederasty, without recourse to the modern moral and legal problem of pedophilia? Cynwolfe (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No answer, I see; I doubt there will be one. I have just restored an obscure (but verifiable and correctly referenced) statement to Hoop rolling which had nothing to do with sexual relations, but which this good soul removed anyway. On the actual topic of pederasty, this campaign involves asserting that Plutarch's Solon is not a reference on Solon and Pisistratus; what, then, would be? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's perplexing. I checked out of curiosity; I take it you mean the German quotation in a footnote. Maybe my German just isn't good enough to get the connotations, but it seems innocuous (out of context). On the other hand, when I checked three or four of Amadscientist's edits in the ancient Greek pederasty article, the changes were beneficial. So I hope I haven't been hasty or unfair based on the tone of discussion here. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The edits in question were the thirteen made on February 12, particularly those removing content and images which Amadscientist felt 1) emphasized the relationship of hoop rolling to pederasty in ancient times, 2) was supported by non-English sources, 3) was redundant, unnecessary, or could be replaced with different content. The first four or five edits removed a fair amount of apparently accurate and properly-cited material, including several quotations. P Aculeius (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The quotations were fairly long and florid (especially the Chateaubriand <snark>naturally</snark>) but they're on the talk page; they are quite literally about children playing with hoops. I could see removing them. But there seem to have been two reasons for removing them: Haiduc did them, and they were from originally unEnglish sources; whether or not the first is a sound guide to editing, the second is specious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I see we have another tireless campaigner against POV, removing Haiduc's edits, even when (as here) they consist of crediting the Loeb edition. Can someone have a word with this sincere crusader? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted, and left a note on their talk page, asking them not to "undo" obviously useful edits. I hope that helps. Paul August ☎ 01:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Antiquarians of ancient Rome

I just created a category Category:Ancient Roman antiquarians meant to contain scholars in antiquity (most notably Varro and Pliny the Elder) who wrote works that deal substantially with antiquarian topics. It is a subcategory of Antiquarians (not of Category:Latin writers). Currently, the category is inhabited only by scholars who wrote Latin; however, the antiquarian of ancient Rome who might come to mind next is Plutarch, since his Roman Questions is one of the main works of Roman antiquarianism. Am I likely to raise objections if I place Plutarch in this category? Obviously, he would also belong in a (presently hypothetical) category "Ancient Greek antiquarians."

I might've preferred the wording "Antiquarians of ancient Rome", but when I've pointed out in the past that "Ancient Roman" might be read misleadingly as ethnic in the later Empire, rather than meaning "of ancient Rome," I've been shot down. And actually called deranged. But Plutarch is an example of the kind of ambiguity I mean. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Same question about Strabo. Is he or isn't he a Roman Historian as well as Greek?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would not classify Strabo as an antiquarian on Rome; possibly for Greece, as an expert on Homer. He's normally called a geographer. The real difficulty is Dionysius of Hallicarnassus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, hadn't even thought of it that way. But that's a list that could go on and on: Appian, Cassius Dio … . The point being not simply that they wrote histories of Rome, but that they wrote it as Roman citizens and Imperial office-holders. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Well I didn't understand that you wanted to populate the catagory with Roman citzen's Is that what you mean. Did I go over board with my additions?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd have preferred "Antiquarians of ancient Rome", but promise not to throw brickbats at the "Ancient Roman antiquarians" whatever their ethnicity. Haploidavey (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What's your thought on Julius Caesar? While he has a great body of written work and he is credited as a writer.....I believe all his work was personal journals and letters that were merely published or copied and preserved. Would you consider him an antiquarian or merely a Latin writer? I would lean towards a simple writer as I am not sure of any factual accounts writen in a perspective that was nuetral enough to be considered a written history from the Caesar as much as the historic impact of the military leader and his strategies. Is that enough?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's an important distinction between antiquarians and historians, if you look at who's currently in the category. Varro and Nigidius Figulus aren't historians, and Caesar's not at all an antiquarian, though an argument could be made for him as an historian, even if he wasn't considered one in antiquity; it isn't as if other historians were 'objective'. The least objective ones, though, like Tanusius Geminus (what, no article?), seem not to have survived.

My point about 'Ancient Roman antiquarians' is not so much their legal status as citizens, but (1) their subject is Roman antiquities (ancient or archaic even to them), and (2) the language in which they write doesn't make them non-Romans, as is manifest from their holding offices. "Ancient Roman" would thus not refer to their ethnicity. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a valid category, although I'm uncertain how useful it will be for Wikipedia readers. As I think we can see even in this very thread, there are people who know a fair amount about the ancient world who aren't sure what an antiquarian is. Antiquarian doesn't help much, either.

I think Plutarch belongs—if I understand you, you mean for this category to contain ancient authors writing about Roman antiquities regardless of the writer's ethnicity/nationality/native language. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could we try to clarify precisely how one should distinguish between historians and antiquarians for this purpose? I think I have a rough idea, but the categories are obviously going to be mixed. If I understand correctly, Caesar qualifies as a historian, since he wrote histories of the wars and campaigns in which he was involved, but not an antiquarian, because his subjects were limited to contemporary history. Plutarch's biographical works... would those be purely historical or would they be antiquarian? I note that he wrote on other subjects as well. Do historians writing about events long past qualify where contemporary historians do not? What about the grammarians who wrote concerning etymology? Is that an antiquarian study? P Aculeius (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not offering answers, but suppose Livy a historian because he aims for chronological clarity, and seems to trim his source material accordingly, whatever those sources might have been; Plutarch an antiquarian because he offers a compendium of sources and organises them thematically - including his Lives. I guess both are also moralists, which makes both subjects of Historiography. Not sure at all about the grammarians and etymologists, leastways within a modern understanding of these as disciplines. Haploidavey (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Something severely mangled up here, so I've struck it. I've no idea what I was attempting to say but I sincerely hope it wasn't what I actually said. Haploidavey (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me give it a shot, and then address Akhilleus's useful question about the category's usefulness. I'm taking the words "antiquarian" and "historian" as they are used in the standard literary histories from (as far as I know) all modern periods. An antiquarian wrote on origines, including etymology: why do we do what we do? In this sense, Plutarch's Roman Questions is the ultimate work of Roman antiquarianism: "Why do the Luperci sacrifice a dog?" … Is it because … ?" An antiquarian work is anecdotal, but doesn't present a grand Thucydidean narrative. Historians, particularly Livy, may deal with antiquarian topics (and cannot avoid them in the early history of Rome; for the Greeks, ditto Herodotus at the beginning of his Histories), but ancient historiography as a genre is about war and politics, not daily life. An antiquarian is more like a folklorist than historian. They typically write on language usage, religion, medical lore (though not on medicine systematically like Celsus or Galen), and customs.

Varro is an antiquarian. His works on language and religion were concerned with origines and the details of lore. Writers who obsess about the precise nature of how the Romans borrowed customs from the Etruscans are antiquarians, like Nigidius Figulus. Aulus Gellius is an antiquarian, folklorist, and encyclopedist, emphatically not an historian. This is a question of literary genre, not how we view the content as "belonging to the past." Both history and antiquarianism belong to the past; but they are not the same literary genre. Reviewing the category now, I see that all the historians have been placed there; I'm removing those. Cassius Dio is not an antiquarian, nor is Appian. Sallust is the opposite of an antiquarian, as far as I can see; though of course we don't have his full histories, his Bellum Catilinae deals with history in living memory, and he is not at all interested in the minutiae of temple decor and how it got there. Again, in terms of literary genre, it's how they construct their work. HIstorians write long analytical narratives about war and politics. In modern literature, something like "The Cultural History of Salt" is a hybrid; Gellius might have a few chapters on "The Cultural History of Cherries", but this wouldn't have been considered historia in antiquity, and is not classed by modern scholars as Roman historiography.

In answer to Akhilleus, I'm not sure there is a good distinction between an antiquarian and an encyclopedist or a folklorist, so I would entertain an argument of redundancy there. I had noticed that I regularly identified certain scholars as "antiquarians," because that's that they were called in my sources, and that there was a clear pattern in the type of writing they did — that is, it tended toward an anecdotal, discrete structure, not the grand overall narratives of the historians (which are indeed chronological as noted by Haploidavey, though sometimes containing 'flashbacks' to provide a causa; works of antiquarianism are arranged by topic, not overall chronology). So I looked up the category "Antiquarians" and found that it was thoroughly subdivided into "Antiquarians by nationality"; therefore, just categorizing my Roman antiquarians under "Antiquarians" wouldn't do, because that wasn't standard practice for the category.

I thought the question about Dio and Appian above was whether they should be categorized as Roman historians (because they wrote in Greek), not whether they were antiquarians. (I believe the category for them is Category:Roman era Greek historians.) Plutarch is the only figure I can think of at the moment who is both historian (in the Lives) and antiquarian. Josephus wrote Jewish Antiquities, of course, but I'm not familiar enough with the work to know whether it was organized as a history, or was an antiquarian collection of stuff. If you read a book of Livy and a book of Aulus Gellius side by side, the difference between historical narrative and antiquarian incrementalism is clear. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Josephus is a narrative history; the standard translation arose before "antiquities" was specialized to suggest antiquarianism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was too lazy to go look at Josephus, whose work I've used only the tiniest bit. I see that I went on at greater length than intended, but I was surprised to see the Roman historians start showing up in the category, which was meant to show how a certain group of writers produced works that have similarities of form and content as a prose genre, and are not historia, nor philosophical and rhetorical writings and such. So if readers (back to Akhilleus's question) clicked on "Ancient Roman antiquarians" at the bottom of the page after reading the article Macrobius, they would find a list of writers who wrote similar odd-ball, catch-all prose works. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I understand exactly what your intentions were! LOL! OK....I wonder than if we would need more than the single catagory unless what you are wanting at the tmoment is to center specificaly on the one catagory.

The additions popping up were mine. But since some may not be in the actual spirit of the catagory anyone of them can easily be removed. If you want me to do so, just let me know which ones. Could you add some prose on the catagory page to clarify and narrow more specificaly which figures from ancient times you are attempting to catagorize since the title is a little vague.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already removed the historians. I guess I'm not seeing what requires explanation. If you're writing an article on an ancient Roman who's identified by your sources as an antiquarian, he goes in this category. If you're editing an article on an ancient Roman who's identified already in the article as an antiquarian, he goes in this category. You don't really have to think about it; if he isn't called an antiquarian, don't put him in there.

(That said, I now realize that some of the articles on Censorinus, Aulus Gellius and so on haven't really been developed beyond the entry in whatever 19th-century handbook gave birth to them; I assumed the word 'antiquarian' was used, but it wasn't, so I'm adding it and putting these on my to-do list for a look in future.)

The initial question was whether it would be considered correct, or potentially perplexing, to includes the likes of Plutarch, that is, a resident of the Empire who wrote in Greek, but on the subject of Roman antiquities. DIdn't mean to make this such a big deal. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You (or someone) needs to add some text to that category page to clearly and unambiguously describe the criteria for inclusion. Saying "if a source calls them that, then they belong here" is vague, insufficient, and can only lead to inconsistent and arbitrary categorization. How can non-specialists possibly be expected to know what this grouping signifies? And how are editors not reading the talk page of WP Classical Greek and Rome supposed to know whether or not to add an article here? Ford MF (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you know when to categorize an ancient Roman as a praetor, or a general, or a "Pre-Linnean botanist"? Because the article says he's one. I'm afraid I'm not understanding your point. The word "antiquarian" isn't even a specialized term particular to classical studies or to academia. See Category:Antiquarians): none of the other subcategory pages, such as "English antiquarians" or "Egyptian antiquarians," have a note at the top; why is one needed for ancient Rome? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because the main article for the category via its parent cat identifies "antiquarianism" as a phenomenon that starts in the middle ages. Ford MF (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quite right — that's obviously an omission. Antiquarianism was an important aspect of literature and scholarship in ancient Rome, as Elizabeth Rawson, among others, has demonstrated in her work on intellectual history. As with many other intellectual activities, the medieval antiquarians and those who follow them often explicitly invoke ancient models for what they're doing. What's missing in the main aritcle is a section on the background in antiquity, which I'll put on my to-do list. Antiquarianism was also a Hellenistic impulse, related to Alexandrianism and the formation of libraries as repositories of the past and encyclopedism; on the Greek side, Pausanias offers a great deal of material of an antiquarian nature. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a deal at all. It's just something you brought to the project and now people want to participate in the spirit of what your doing. I had questions myself for clarification and a discussion is great as far as I am concerned.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Move of Achaeans to Achaeans (Homer)

Recently the article Achaeans was moved to Achaeans (Homer), there is a discussion about it here: Talk:Achaeans (Homer)#Recent movement. Paul August ☎ 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Latin + Greek assistance at RefDesk?

Can someone versed in basic Latin and classical Greek take a look at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant and advise?

Its a fairly basic question of translation, but I'm not a classical linguist.

Thanks!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

FYI, Comparison between Roman and Han Empires has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It ended here Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires I assume.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Pederasty in ancient Greece

A discussion on the talk page of this article contemplates reducing the article to a stub, because it was edited by a now-banned editor, named in sections above. Any interested parties are invited to discuss at Talk:Pederasty in ancient Greece. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Actually, I'm proposing to stub the article not just because it's the work of a now-banned editor but because it has been savaged by editors seriously pissed off with that editor - it's possibly even worse now than when he left it (it is certainly less coherent). Stubbing is an opportunity for a new start. The work of the banned editor is in electronic storage for later retrieval, if anyone wants to retrieve sections of it. However, I believe there are people associated with this project who would be quite ready, willing and able to rebuild that article from scratch if given the chance. Unfortunately, you probably won't get that chance. Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You can make a new start on an article anytime, without stubbing the article that already exists. It's as simple as starting a page in your userspace—e.g., User:Akhilleus/Pederasty in ancient Greece. If you want collaboration, you advertise what you're doing on article talk pages, interested project pages, etc. That way you can start fresh without stubbing a page and denying information to Wikipedia readers (most of whom have no idea that older versions of an article can be read). --Akhilleus (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That simply postpones the big moment when the existing edit gets scrapped. It's not easy to get enthusiastic about a project with uncertainties hanging over it in that way. And you are also underestimating how bad the current edit is (it's so bad, I've even restored some of Haiduc's material to improve it). A stub will give lots of people freedom to work on the article, it will remove all doubts about the article's legitimacy and it will focus people's minds on a brave new future instead of the polarized past. If the stubb fails to stimulate new editors, then the current edit can be restored after a couple of months. I don't understand the opposition to this. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. If someone actually starts writing a new version of the article, as soon as it becomes viable it gets moved into mainspace. This is a procedure that's been used on many articles.

The thing is, I doubt anyone's going to write a new version any time soon. And that's the real problem with the stubbing proposal--if it happens, the page will simply remain blank for months. That's months in which readers get no information on a subject that seems reasonably popular, to judge from pageview statistics. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Blank for months? Would like to bet on that? Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was supposed to be on the article talk page, but since it's here, my recommendation would for one editor to return to the version that existed before the recent round of "dishaiducking" occurred, then carefully include the more beneficial edits or aspects of the edits since that time, in a way that harmonizes them with the existing article, but eliminates misleading or apparently biased material (with explanations on the talk page where appropriate). I hate to volunteer anybody for this, but based on the comments here and in related topics I think Cynwolfe would do a good job. P Aculeius (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, but while I'll make suggestions, I have literally a dozen interrelated little articles on Roman religion looking at me accusingly from my chaotic desktop. My suggestion would be … well, let me make that on the appropriate talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, this discussion should be on the article talk page. Nothing but confusion will result from proceeding in two places at once. Also there may be editors working on the article who don't watch this page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed some guidelines for addressing the considerable problems posed by trying to improve pederasty in ancient Greece. I'm calling for editors, particularly experienced, moderate editors with no special interest in the topic, to edit these guidelines into a form we can accept as consensus on how to proceed. Go here if you can spare a few minutes to help. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Category renaming

Just wanted to call attention to a renaming proposal (not my initiative) that affects several categories pertaining to this project. It's very minor: changing "Ancient Rome" to "ancient Rome". It's my understanding — please correct if I'm wrong — that the lowercase represents the preferred WP style. I accidentally violated this in naming a category and was too lazy to go through the rigamarole to fix it. So give it a yea or nay to move it along if you have a minute: it's here. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I commented over there, supporting "ancient Rome". Is there a section of the MOS that applies to the lowercasing of ancient Rome, Greece, etc.? It's not the biggest deal in the world, but it should be consistent across articles. I've often wondered whether it would be worth getting together a style guideline for classics articles--it would be nice to have a document that sets out best practices for citing ancient authors. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Consistency is good, but in many cases formatting is and ought to remain a matter of personal style, as long as it doesn't confuse anybody. If you're writing or revising a whole series of related articles, it makes sense to implement a more-or-less uniform style, but it doesn't need to be the same as every other editor in the field uses. As for citation, I think the main question needs to be, "are the citations clear and understandable", not "are they written the same way in every article". P Aculeius (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I meant "guideline" in the sense of a recommendation, rather than a requirement. I think we've all encountered articles where the citations are unclear and incomprehensible, and having a guideline might help writers figure out what to do. Perhaps the benefit wouldn't repay the effort required to create such a guideline, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So, sort of a suggestion for people who don't know how to do it, right? The format I use is: 1) full name of the author, 2) full name of the work, with date of publication (if known) in parenthesis, 3) number of book or volume in small Roman numerals, 4) number of chapter or page in Arabic numerals. Following basic conventions, the name of the work is italicized if published as an independent work, or in double quotation marks if it represents an article or section of a larger publication, which then follows it in italics. I realize that Roman numerals for volume numbers have fallen out of fashion (they always seem to vanish around volume "L"!), but I've found that it's less confusing when the volume and page/chapter number are written differently, especially when there are multiple citations to the same source. Some examples:

• <ref>[[Cicero|Marcus Tullius Cicero]], ''[[De Oratore]]'', vii. 7, 10, 15.</ref>
• <ref>[[Tacitus|Publius Cornelius Tacitus]], ''Annales'', xxix. 11, 12.</ref>
• <ref>[[Michael Grant (author)|Michael Grant]], ''Roman Myths'' (1971), pp. 254, 271.</ref>
• <ref>''[[Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition|Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', eleventh edition (1911), ''s.v. Pompeii''.</ref>
• <ref>George Davis Chase, "The Origin of Roman Praenomina", in ''Harvard Studies in Classical Philology'', vol. viii. (1897).</ref>
• <ref>''[[Oxford Classical Dictionary]]'', 2nd Ed. (1970), ''s.v. Democritus''.</ref>

Obviously there's room for variation here. This style evolved as I worked on more and more articles. I adopted some features of citations from my sources as I found them useful. On the other hand, I don't usually include the name of the publisher or the city (often a list of cities) where the publisher is located, since for the ancient sources the same volume and chapter numbers apply in every edition, and in the modern works there's usually just one edition (or one at a time). Not that there'd be anything wrong with adding them, I was just trying to simplify the citations for convenience. P Aculeius (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

P Aculeius, I find your devotion to 19th-century protocols delightful, truly I do, but the only place I want to see Roman numerals is on a sundial. Consistency of citation style always reminds me of the special problems of notation for Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (come to think of it, the only place other than a sundial I want to see a Roman numeral), which provokes in me some adolescent desire for rebellion. Expressed in this case as: what difference does it make, as long as we make it as easy as possible to find the cited source for someone who wants to read further or verify? We have so many articles that need major editing, both in terms of producing readable content with an ear to modern idiom, and updating content to recognize developments in classical studies over the last, oh, hundred+ years, that I'm going to find it hard to get worked up about a numerical style point. However … Cynwolfe (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Category renaming again

Evidently there's no such thing as a minor issue on Wikipedia. Every fight must be to the death. The issue of whether it should be "ancient Rome" or "Ancient Rome" in the name of categories is unresolved. It was suggested that we G&R pinheads talk about it on this page. (No doubt so that we can present our consensus, and then be shot down by people who have never actually provided any content pertaining to antiquity.) Please confine yourself in this section to the ancient/Ancient question. Here are thoughts, based on the discussion from the renaming proposal, to give you something to throw darts at.

• The renaming proposal affects only category names at this time. The issues are:

1. Some categories capitalize the "A"; a greater number do not. Consistency within category names is useful. (I'm no fan of robotic consistency, but this style point removes rather than adds to one's editing burden. When I'm creating articles, or looking to categorize preexisting ones, I find it hard enough to recall what the categories are, much less having to remember whether said category is "ancient" or "Ancient".)
2. It is asserted by some that "ancient Rome" is a proper noun for a definite historical period or political entity. It is not. The proper nouns are Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, and Roman Empire. The phrase "ancient Rome" is generic, or common, like "medieval Rome" or "contemporary Rome."

To refresh your memory, see renaming proposal. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

just to butt in (no I'm not following you) - the proposal missed some other cats that needed renaming eg Category:Warfare of the Ancient era and some subcats therein. (also Category:Religion in Ancient history - the capitalisation here is probably just a harmless conceit) - some of these are out of the scope of this project but it would be good to get them all in one go.

I think you really should take this directly to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) (wikipedia lacks guidance on this exact topic and needs it - you could be of great service).

Agree with uncapitalised by the way, except at The Beginning Of a Sentence :)

(Once WP:MOS is established cat-renaming can be done with cfr-speedy - which is non-problematic.)77.86.119.83 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To this general end I've started the process here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Capitalis.28z.29ation_of_ancient 77.86.119.83 (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for help with a personal name

Expert attention would be welcome at Talk:Lucius Cornelius Balbus (minor) - what name should he be given?--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

New article. Help is sought

An article called Glossary of ancient Roman religion was recently created. There is some disagreement over its title, content and purpose. Help is sought for the article's development. Haploidavey (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox on Trojan War

There's a dispute currently going on at Trojan War that members of this project might want to contribute to. Some editors believe the article should have a Template:Infobox Military Conflict, so the article will have a box at the top telling readers such "facts" as 866000 Greeks fought against 676000 Trojans. Other editors, including me, think the infobox is inappropriate, because it implies that the war is a historical event with known troop strengths and commanders; the Trojan War is, of course, a mythological conflict, though of course the stories about it may preserve some historical memories of the Bronze Age. Please give an opinion at Talk:Trojan War#Returning_the_Infobox. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

dubious mycenaean woman

Do you know this woman?

Would someone take a look at the accompanying image? It's used to illustrate Mycenaean Greece. Not only is the provenance dubious ("book scan"), but the tiered skirt and bared breast, as well as citing a fresco as the source, suggests Minoan to me. It may be a modern drawing made from a fresco. Or it may be a total fabrication, and if so, probably under copyright. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The image is based on a fragmentary wall painting from Tiryns, the seaside fortress near Mycenae. Camenae (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for such a prompt answer. So it's the work of a modern individual? Do you think it should be described and credited better? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The excavations at Tiryns that uncovered this particular fresco happened circa 1910. By 1912 the Metropolitan Museum of Art had acquired a reproduction painted by one E. Gilliéron of Athens. This reproduction, which appears in black & white in the Dec. 1912 Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, resembles our illustration in every detail save color. I have always wondered how much information was available to the painters of such reproductions because the frescoes as presented in Greek museums today are highly fragmentary. Look at the photograph of our fresco here. I would like to know from what book our picture came but am not so bothered about copyright: this reproduction (reconstruction, fantasy?) has been around for quite a while. Camenae (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think works of art should be described in as much detail as possible: Museum catalog number if possible, please! I don't know anything about this fresco, but I do know that other reconstructions performed around the same time were highly imaginative... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, National Museum of Greece 11670, the "Mycenaean Lady". Museum card here. Date of the original is still unclear to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Akhilleus. I believe the card belongs to this fresco here. Our Mycenaean lady is not holding a necklace as the card indicates. Camenae (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Argh. You're right. No wonder I did so badly in Art History! Does this look right? Maybe 5883? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Here she is in AJA 1911. However, this just raises more questions; in reference to what is "Fig. 6" in the journal, the text says "there are parts of a larger fresco representing a woman cup-bearer", implying that the drawing is a reconstruction of the "highly imaginative" sort — it asserts the totality of this fresco to an extent that's probably misleading. This reminded me of Mary Beard's piece in the NYRB a few months back (this goes along with what you were saying, Akhilleus). At any rate, the image file needs to be described better. I've done my good deed for the Greeks this week and need to get back to Rome, so I hope one of you can tend to this. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(To clarify, I think it's OK to use this as an article illustration, if it's clear what it is: "Modern drawing of a Mycenaean woman based on a fresco at Tiryns," something like that. And then if someone clicks on the image, as I did, to get additional info, additional info should be there.) Cynwolfe (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on. Almost all Minoan and Mycenaean art is thoroughly reconstructed; unless this is something Arthur Evans would not have done, the caption adds nothing to the learned, and misleads the vulgar by suggesting this is worse than others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't possibly think that the information given with the image file is adequate. When I click on an image, I expect to learn more than I can from a caption within an article. I particularly want to get enough info to look up the work of art elsewhere if I want to. The image file says nothing about it being based on the fresco at Tiryns, for instance, and identifies the source as 'book scan,' which may be OK in this case but isn't good practice in general. It presents the image as if it were a direct representation of the actual fresco, instead of someone's drawing of a fresco. As for the caption, it needs only to say 'Mycenaean woman, based on a fresco at Tiryns.' The question I had on viewing it was whether it was an utter fabrication of modern fancy; the note 'based on a fresco' would've answered my question. And the entire point is that the great pioneers of Mycenaean and Minoan archaeology over-reconstructed their finds, and used methods that are no longer considered standard, just as their methods of excavation would now be considered appallingly careless. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The British Museum wants to give you money and help you write articles!

Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend the Backstage Pass event at the British Museum. It was part of a wider project of engagement with Wikipedia (see WP:GLAM/BM) that has seen them take on a temporary Wikipedian In Residence, User:Witty lama. They see Wikipedia as sharing many of their aims, and they want to encourage involvement by Wikipedians with the museum, and vice versa. They have even offered 5 prizes of £100 at the BM shop for featured articles on BM topics - in any language, including Italian and Greek, even Latin I guess!
Most Wikipedians probably don't know that the BM has curators dedicated to answering phone/email questions about their specialist areas, and most of their department libraries welcome visitors doing bona fide research - and they now seem to recognise that editing Wikipedia articles, especially about items in the BM's collections, counts for those purposes. I know that the first question most people will have is "Can we have images of all their stuff?" and I'd just ask people to be patient on that front. Let's just say that the museum are well aware of our hopes there, there are staff who see advantages to the museum in doing something, and it's being discussed at the highest level. On the other hand it's a very complex area that needs to be handled diplomatically. Literally in some cases - foreign governments can get very touchy about the dissemination of images of artifacts relating to their cultural history, and the museum needs to respect those concerns.
So for the moment the focus is on using the BM's huge resources of books, expertise etc to improve article content, and hopefully that will include articles being peer-reviewed by BM staff. Some of them are quite nervous about doing stuff on Wikipedia, a mixture of fear of professional ridicule, nervousness about the technical aspects, stories of rapid reverts of good-faith edits and just general culture shock - it's a very different world to the one they come from. So I'd ask everyone to look after any BM people that you see around the place, Wikipedia can gain a lot from their involvement and it would be a shame if they're discouraged for any reason. As I mentioned above, WP:GLAM/BM is the clearing house for the BM's involvement with Wikipedia, and I suggest that further questions/comments are directed there. Le Deluge (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Will they be wearing funny hats or something so we can recognize them? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, I'm sure they'd love it :-) Seriously though, although it's impossible to know one new-editor from another, there might be some new users editing about British Museum related objects and if they're doing odd things just check to see if they've put a message on their talkpage saying that they're from the BM. I know that's good practice for recent-change patrollers anyway, but just saying. Moreover, if you've got any specific questions that you'd like answered that you think a BM curator might be able to help with, please tell me and I'll try to get in touch with the right one. Equally - if you'd like a peer-review of an article, I might be able to get something like that too. Witty Lama 19:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Have them look at Cyrus Cylinder, a constant problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The curators responsible for Cyrus Cylinder are now indeed involved and hopefully will be all the better for it! The article will listed for GA review shortly if I'm not mistaken. Witty Lama 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoxne Challenge

Dear all,
As part of the ongoing collaboration with the British Museum I'm pleased to inform you of the latest activity that also happens to fall within your area of interest - all about the Hoxne Hoard. You can find out about the project at Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Hoxne_challenge but suffice it to say the idea is to bring together all the world experts on a subject, and all of their published sources and to try to see just how good a quality an article can be produced in a short amount of time. We call it the "Hoxne Challenge". If you'd like to get involved - you know what to do! :-) Witty Lama 19:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus and Icarus

Daedalus and Icarus WERE NOT exiled by king Minos. If they had been exiled, they wouldn't need to build wings. They would have been thrown out. Daedalus was prohibited from ever leaving the island of Crete (although offered every privilege and luxury possible) because he knew the secrets of the labyrinth.

It is really irritating when people make up their own versions of the myths. These diversions change the meaning, effect, symbolism completely. Because of the dynamic nature of myth, such changes are more than irresponsible. I wonder why the Icarus article is semi-protected. Is it because it is so correct? Please!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edopera (talk • contribs) 1 July 2010

The Icarus article deals disproportionately with modern representations and Hindu parallels, with minimal discussion of what the myth meant in Greek culture. Very few secondary sources are used, and our dear friend Robert Graves turns up among them. (It bears repeating that Graves and his distinctive hybrid of poetic creativity and scholarly speculation is an object of study himself, not a neutral scholarly source.) So yes, that article could use some improvement, if that's your point. Could you make specific suggestions on the article's talk page (here)? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, most of Graves; half of The Greek Myths is a reliable source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

;-) Nevertheless, Graves is a valuable resource, if nothing else for the sources he cites. Paul August ☎ 01:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. Any page on the left is good, especially the bottom half. Haploidavey (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And neutral, as Wikipedia so often proves, is not always interesting or intellectually stimulating, as Graves is. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And hear hear! to that. Haploidavey (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Although we do have a smaller percentage of sheer and utter nonsense - I think. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

not a calendrist

Does anybody know a good word (or short way of saying) 'someone who writes a calendar'? Chronographer? "Chronography" redirects to "chronology," which to me isn't the same thing. There are a number of minor figures in antiquity and the early medieval period who aren't really known for much of anything else but producing fasti or a computus or such and who don't seem to fit in an existing category that I've seen, except for Category:Chronologists. Is that a good-enough place for these guys? And (to complicate matters) does that mean Ovid belongs in that category, because he wrote a work that took calendar form? Or Spenser, for The Shepheardes Calender? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It contains Bede and Eusebius; looks good to me. But Ovid and Spenser - to say nothing of Tchaikovsky and Alban Butler - should be somewhere else. (Although I don't think the cat defining for anybody but Butler ;->) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Chronographers does appeal to me though. The real solution, for which I'm not volunteering, is to write Chronography; I'm surprised the 1911 Britannica didn't have an article to -er- borrow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bede is what led me to the category 'Chronologists,' in fact. Jerome's there too, I think. I was surprised when Chronography redirected to Chronology. Sure you can't be persuaded to find an article to borrow? Spenser, right, doesn't really produce a calendar, but Ovid's Fasti, with its astronomical notices and such, goes beyond arranging stuff thematically by months and really is a calendar of sorts (well, maybe in the way that The Art of Love really is a sex manual). Cynwolfe (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

State church of the Roman Empire AFD

Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State church of the Roman Empire (formerly Roman imperial church. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion required

Include or not: Talk:List of ancient monoliths#Mausoleum of Theodoric. Thanks Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

misguided change to Orosius

User:Nono64 has made the following changes:

• He has renamed the page "Orosius" as Paulus Orosius, even though just plain "Orosius" is far more common.
• He has turned "Orosius" into a disambiguation page — except that Paulus Orosius is the only active link. There is nothing to disambiguate. The other item is a redlink to an animal genus.

This struck me as utterly otiose. When I went to his talk page, I saw notices from other users making similar complaints. I intend to undo the Orosius changes, unless members of this project think the changes make sense. I would also like to make a formal complaint about the user. I've never done such a thing, and wonder whether someone could suggest the most appropriate way to go about it. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What was really the Roman Empire

Though I know this is an oft debated issue ...

There is some ongoing and fairly unpleasant debate going on at Talk:State church of the Roman Empire (formerly Roman Imperial Church). A great deal of the debate centers around what was really the Roman Empire at any given point in history and what is the right way for Wikipedia articles to talk about Roman entities and non-Roman entities. I have asserted on that talk page that those sorts of discussions are really beyond the scope of the article (these questions affect far more than that article). As such I am redirecting that part of the discussion here. If there are any essays or previous discussions that are particularly relevant please feel free to share.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Athens wasn't a democracy?

Would someone care to enlighten the present discussion at Talk:List of wars between democracies, at which the latest entrant is insisting that the Greeks didn't have democracy, they had representative government? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There is also a baffling argument going on as to whether the Roman Republic had a democratic element; in question is whether the Punic Wars ought to be included in the list. The argument against including it seems to be that there are too many sources that support its inclusion. (Yes, you read that right.) And apologies in advance for my own irascible tone on that page at a point that appears to be early in the discussion; in fact this went back to earlier discussions. Any fresh insights on what's going wrong would be welcome. By me, anyway, as I'm perplexed. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Migration Period

I have written a comment on the introduction to 'Migration Period', and also tried to submit a rephrasing, which unfortunately got reverted . Even though the article is not listed on the 'WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome', it is dealing with the same period, and to some extent the same geography, as that of Classics . In the article for 'Classics' the period of Late Antiquity is given as ca. AD 300-600, and the 'Migration Period'-article use AD 300-700 . Hopefully I have raised your curiosity . The comment is at the talk-page Talk:Migration_Period#Critical comments to the intro, and a draft is here -> User:Sechinsic/migration01 . Sechinsic (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Deaf Julius Caesar, trope theorist Cicero

These probably make perfect sense and I've just gone daft, but what's with these categories? Julius Caesar is now in the category "Deaf people" and Cicero is a "trope theorist." A quick search for "deaf" or "hear" in the Julius Caesar article failed to turn up a reference that would explain this. I suppose one could consider Cicero a 'trope theorist,' but since there's no article Trope theory, I may not even know what it is. Moreover, the word 'trope' doesn't appear in the article, which would be nice if it's important to categorize him as such. Tomorrow, I'm expecting Augustus to become a Model Airplane Hobbyist. Mommy, where do baby categories come from? How do you verify them? Cynwolfe (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Without committing to an opinion about the soundness of the Category:Trope theorists campaign of Stefanomione (talk · contribs) , I can appreciate the inclusion of Socrates in its subcategory "Irony theorists." Wareh (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A category to which I wish we could consign more Wikipedians. Or maybe I mean "Ironic theorists."

"Socratic irony" appears in the second graf of the Socrates lead section, so I'm with you there. The word "trope" last time I checked did not appear in the Cicero article. I use the word "trope" occasionally and always feel pretentious when I do, but Cicero probably qualifies as a trope theorist if asserted to be one in the body text (I might not even tag it as "citation needed"), and Quintilian certainly. Augustine, despite the treasure trove De doctrina christiana, is MIA as a trope theorist.

I think I've solved the mystery of Caesar's alleged deafness, and will post to Julius Caesar. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)