Hans Adler (talk | contribs) |
P Aculeius (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
Various Wikipedia articles claim that the notion of Carthage being salted is a 19th century invention. Example articles are [[Third Punic War]] and [[Salting the earth]]. However, the latter article also includes a mention of a thirteenth century Pope expressing that idea, which demolishes the idea of it being a nineteenth century thing. Is the Pope quote accurate, and if so, how do we deal with the error, given that it is cited? And finally, given that half of the statement (the century) is factually incorrect, is the overall premise suspect - could it be true that Carthage was indeed salted? --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 11:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
Various Wikipedia articles claim that the notion of Carthage being salted is a 19th century invention. Example articles are [[Third Punic War]] and [[Salting the earth]]. However, the latter article also includes a mention of a thirteenth century Pope expressing that idea, which demolishes the idea of it being a nineteenth century thing. Is the Pope quote accurate, and if so, how do we deal with the error, given that it is cited? And finally, given that half of the statement (the century) is factually incorrect, is the overall premise suspect - could it be true that Carthage was indeed salted? --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 11:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
:[[Salting the earth]] says without citation that it wasn't even possible, but it occurs to me that low lying parts might have been salted by controlled flooding and evaporation. Or could salting have been a technical term for weed control that could also be applied to other, more effective methods? [[User talk:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] 11:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
:[[Salting the earth]] says without citation that it wasn't even possible, but it occurs to me that low lying parts might have been salted by controlled flooding and evaporation. Or could salting have been a technical term for weed control that could also be applied to other, more effective methods? [[User talk:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] 11:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
:I ''do'' wish people would stop attributing every crackpot idea or myth to 19th century scholars... if they had any idea how much good work was done in classics during that period, we wouldn't be having half as many stupid arguments... [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 12:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:55, 5 February 2013
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
scope overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Rome
This Project page should explain how the scope overlap is supposed to be resolved. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- By definition their scope is the Rome part of Classical Greece and Rome. A child project section where WP:ROME is described as having primacy over articles related to specifically to the city of Rome would do it.
—Sowlos (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not really a problem to have projects with overlapping scopes (see e.g. WP:GREECE), but I can't see why Wikiproject Rome exists, since this project deals with articles about classical Rome all the time. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently, a lot of people in the West (esp. in the US) primarily understand 'Rome' and 'Greece' as referring to ancient history. WP:ROME seems to share in this confusion: 'This WikiProject has been formed to foster the improvement of Wikipedia’s coverage of ancient Rome. It covers the city, monarchy, republic and empire, including the modern life of the city itself, its architecture, people, as well as its ancient and contemporary history. ... Similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, Rome along with Greece, this project's scope retains those precise periods but with an emphasis focused on structures, monuments, people and locations of importance to Roman history.'
- For the record, I think multiple projects within the scope of ancient Roman civilization is redundant. It is difficult to divide the topic in any meaningful way as it is all very interrelated.
—Sowlos (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Along the lines of Wikiproject Greece it occurs to me that a Wikiproject devoted to the Eternal City throughout its history, from the Iron Age to the present day, could be a valuable thing--but the scope would go from Hut of Romulus to Theatre of Pompey to Sant'Eustachio to Piazza_del_Campidoglio to EUR, Rome to 8½, and everything in between, and beyond. But WP:ITALY covers that, I suppose. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- It looks rather like a version of WP:London which has got fixated on the ancient stuff which would be better in this project - though when it comes to co-ordinating articles on the capital city of Italy (rather than Ancient Rome per se) I can see it would be useful.Brigade Piron (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cynwolfe is right, it is a poorly crafeted statement of scope. The project was originally limited to the city of rome and was a stale prject with two members. I spoke to the person who put it together and they built it for someone who seems to have lost interest, but I contacted everyone I could when I began restoring the project. I expanded it to all things relating to ancient Rome but I chisiled over the original statement incorporating what was there into a few different version. I agree the project should also be renamed to WikiProject Ancient Rome. That is actually a good idea but I wanted to also emphasise the city itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It looks rather like a version of WP:London which has got fixated on the ancient stuff which would be better in this project - though when it comes to co-ordinating articles on the capital city of Italy (rather than Ancient Rome per se) I can see it would be useful.Brigade Piron (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Along the lines of Wikiproject Greece it occurs to me that a Wikiproject devoted to the Eternal City throughout its history, from the Iron Age to the present day, could be a valuable thing--but the scope would go from Hut of Romulus to Theatre of Pompey to Sant'Eustachio to Piazza_del_Campidoglio to EUR, Rome to 8½, and everything in between, and beyond. But WP:ITALY covers that, I suppose. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Input sought at Roman Empire
At Roman Empire, we are seeking opinions about how to fill the "type of government" slot in the infobox. There is a proposal to label it an empire. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I took a quick look Cynwolfe but was not able to see the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
New stub articles within project scope
I have created two new stub articles needing expansion, additional work and input from project participants. The categories could use a review by others as they may need some tweaking, additions or subtractions.
The articles are:
Curia of Pompey and Porticus of Pompey which are given english common names. Please feel free to to expand and colaborate! Thanks and happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- One thing I am unsure of from other similar articles- Should it be Porticus of Pompey, or just Porticus Pompey?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Compare Porticus Octaviae (in Italian Portico di Ottavia); Porticus Argonautarum ("Portico of the Argonauts", Portico degli Argonauti); and Porticus Catuli, "Portico of Catulus". You might check Richardson, A New Topographical Dictionary[1] who uses the Latin Porticus Pompeii; but if you haven't used Richardson before, see first Bill Thayer's brief but as always astute layman's review at LacusCurtius. I would say that it should be either Porticus Pompeii or "Portico of Pompey" (that is, translating both elements into English). Cynwolfe (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Cynwolfe, either Porticus Pompeii or Portico of Pompey (although I would suggest Portico of Pompeius as an alternative in English; I know that "Pompey" has the benefit of long usage in English, but it both sounds and looks like a nickname). Since I don't know how familiar the English name is, I'd defer to Cynwolfe's judgment, but for anything not that widely discussed in the first place (and architectural features might qualify), you might be well advised to begin the lead with something like, "The Porticus Pompeii or Portico of Pompeius is a gate...", or alternatively "The Porticus Pompeii or Portico of Pompeius (or Pompey) is a gate..." The advantage of these is that it places a slight preference on its original Latin name, making the article consistent with similar articles, but without suggesting that scholarship preferring English names and grammar is incorrect. By placing the English form(s) in bold as well, you leave it up to the reader to decide which form to use, even if you use one form consistently throughout the article (quotations excepted). I think it's important to consider the fact that different scholars make a wide variety of choices when dealing with the names of people and things from antiquity, and have for centuries; with a little foresight it's possible to accommodate that fact without actually taking sides. P Aculeius (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I apologise for not seeing this sooner. Rather a full plate on Wikipedia this last few months. I am familiar with Richardson, but was concerned that the title not confuse the reader with a similar structure in Pompeii. I tend to agree with Cynwolfe's second suggestion as I was also concerned about the use of porticus over portico.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Cynwolfe, either Porticus Pompeii or Portico of Pompey (although I would suggest Portico of Pompeius as an alternative in English; I know that "Pompey" has the benefit of long usage in English, but it both sounds and looks like a nickname). Since I don't know how familiar the English name is, I'd defer to Cynwolfe's judgment, but for anything not that widely discussed in the first place (and architectural features might qualify), you might be well advised to begin the lead with something like, "The Porticus Pompeii or Portico of Pompeius is a gate...", or alternatively "The Porticus Pompeii or Portico of Pompeius (or Pompey) is a gate..." The advantage of these is that it places a slight preference on its original Latin name, making the article consistent with similar articles, but without suggesting that scholarship preferring English names and grammar is incorrect. By placing the English form(s) in bold as well, you leave it up to the reader to decide which form to use, even if you use one form consistently throughout the article (quotations excepted). I think it's important to consider the fact that different scholars make a wide variety of choices when dealing with the names of people and things from antiquity, and have for centuries; with a little foresight it's possible to accommodate that fact without actually taking sides. P Aculeius (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Naming - Cratinus vs Kratinos
Hi, wondering what the rules are - he was Greek and lived long before Rome became well known so I would think original Greek transcription would fit better? Richiez (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Going by the most common usage of English-language scholarship, and WP:COMMONNAME, the Latinized transliteration is probably going to stand on Wikipedia for most ancient authors. The Germans have always been more likely to use the so-called "scientific" transliteration, hence de:Kratinos. davidiad.:τ 21:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, most western scholarship uses or has historically used Latin forms of Greek names. There's another logical reason for this: we're not using the Greek alphabet, we're using the Latin one, so there's no reason for strict transliteration. The idea is to render names according to the conventions of the language and alphabet being used. Strict transliteration necessarily rejects those conventions even if it results in strange and unfamiliar formations. Wikipedia isn't intended to break new ground by rejecting established scholarship and conventions; it's meant to collect all relevant data for the convenience of users. So the German convention contravenes the basic policies of English Wikipedia.
- That doesn't mean you can't include a strict transliteration in the article lead, though. Something like, "Cratinus, in Greek Κρατινος (Kratinos)..." with Cratinus used throughout the article, unless a source using another form is quoted. That would be perfectly reasonable. P Aculeius (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Good Article Nominee: Philomela
I have spent the last few weeks revising and expanding the article on Philomela. I have proposed my work for Good Article status. If anyone is interested in reviewing it, take a look at WP:GAN. I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia - Limes Dacicus
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia - Limes Dacicus is listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects (version of 10:52, 29 December 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Janus
Janus has been nominated as a GA. Could I encourage a couple of project members to actually read the article, and offer some suggestions as to what might need to be improved before establishing this as one of the few mythology/ancient religion articles to achieve this rating? I have reasons for not participating in the review. One is that I don't know how to read at least half the prose. Another is that I'm foolishly contemplating a run at Cupid before Valentine's Day, which would no doubt become a full-time occupation. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, you do know how to read... it's yet another premature GA nomination of an article which doesn't yet meet B class criteria (but in this case, for readability, rather than coverage). Not easily remedied. And I'm getting bogged down in Roman roads and other infrastructure... (that's the thing those cupids are frolicking on. It too has powerful suckage)... Haploidavey (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Mark Antony's birthday
Does anyone have good sources on the question of Mark Antony's date of birth? There seem to be at least three dates floating around. I mean the day, not the year, which is also questionable. Seems there's a little tug o' war between two dates over at his article, and when I attempted to look into it, I didn't come up with either one, but rather a third (based on a passage of Suetonius that says he had the same birth date as Drusus, the father of Claudius). If there's no "right" answer, we need to just say that, after some weighing of sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I could really use some help explaining how to document this, since I seem to be failing miserably: see Talk:Mark Antony#New section for summarizing. I'm not sure the other person understands the relation of primary and secondary sources in the field of classical studies, and perhaps I'm too "in-universe." Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Help needed removing copyvio
See User talk:Moonriddengirl#User Mondigomo and massive copyvio - some of these articles will be of interest to editors here. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is now at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mondigomo if anyone has the time to chip in. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Alexander the Great article
Hi I just though I would mention this here as it probably concerns you guys. The Alexander the Great article is in a pretty sorry state, with certain sections having bizarre tracts of biased text and opinions in poor English pasted into them, I raised this last month on the talk page but no one who has the power to edit the article has noticed as of yet. Considering the article is such a high profile one it really should be fixed asap. 82.10.182.26 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Kenny
File:Treasury big2.jpg
File:Treasury big2.jpg, a former featured picture candidate from 2005, has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Has it? Looks to me as if it's been nominated for a move to Commons. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I nominated it to move to commons, however, when I posted that message, it was up for deletion [2] which was removed after this message was already here [3] ; You need to check the history. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Meow. davidiad.:τ 01:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- So what's your point? (Not you, pussycat.) You told us it was nominated for deletion; when I went to check why, it was not nominated for deletion, but recommended for a move to Commons. What is it you wish project members to look at or respond to or do? Cynwolfe (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was an advisory that something about Classical Greece was up for deletion. It was a recommendation suggested at FFD that files up for deletion should have the relevant wikiprojects informed. I can skip Classical Greece and Rome next time. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Once the file was no longer nominated for deletion, this topic became moot. If the nomination for deletion was defeated before anyone had a chance to comment on it, it's no wonder people were confused about the reason for your request, or whether you expected some sort of comment on a file that wasn't nominated for deletion. Please don't write off entire projects simply because people didn't understand what you were trying to do. That impacts the entire Wikipedia community. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was an advisory that something about Classical Greece was up for deletion. It was a recommendation suggested at FFD that files up for deletion should have the relevant wikiprojects informed. I can skip Classical Greece and Rome next time. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- So what's your point? (Not you, pussycat.) You told us it was nominated for deletion; when I went to check why, it was not nominated for deletion, but recommended for a move to Commons. What is it you wish project members to look at or respond to or do? Cynwolfe (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Meow. davidiad.:τ 01:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I nominated it to move to commons, however, when I posted that message, it was up for deletion [2] which was removed after this message was already here [3] ; You need to check the history. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation discussion
The discussion Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Example of why "historical significance" consideration in PRIMARYTOPIC is a problem regarding the current wording of WP:PRIMARY TOPIC might be of interest to this project. The question is whether to discard "historical significance" as a criterion. Some members of this project have participated before in disambiguation discussions as they pertain to topics of classical antiquity. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Theodoric to Theoderic
As per my note on the talk page of Theoderic the Great I've started the process of correcting the spelling of Theodoric to Theoderic. This was an error carried over from the 19th century, whereas most reputable modern sources use Theoderic, the internet is filled with older materials that still use Theodoric. Because of this, "Theodoric" is so prevalent in Wikipedia, I thought it best to stop the correcting process and seek counsel here regarding the issue. Any thoughts? Feedback on the Theoderic talk page appreciated. -- spin|control 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're assuming that it's an error on the basis of variation in how the name was spelt in antiquity. But practically all scholarship until quite recently preferred the form "Theodoric," and this is still the form found in most references. It's not, as asserted on the recently-renamed "Theoderic" talk page, that scholars were unaware of variations in spelling. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology uses "Theodoricus or Theodericus" as article titles, but within each article "Theodoric" is used consistently. I wonder if the belief that "Theodoric" is a mistake doesn't stem from a quite different error; precisely because the name was Germanic, it had no standard spelling, and so it was spelt phonetically, leading to variants such as "Theodoric" or "Theoderic."
- I don't think it's important whether the preference for "Theodoric" was influenced by the similar spelling of the Greek "Theodorus"; that didn't make it any less valid. The fact that several recent articles seem to have used the other variant doesn't tell us any more than that it's generally fashionable to present articles in a novel light, and changing the spelling of familiar names always draws attention. It doesn't mean that any new discoveries or revelations have come to light, or that the accepted forms are somehow erroneous. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the familiar form should remain unless and until some compelling reason for changing it can be urged, and the fact that a few scholarly articles in recent decades have switched from one spelling to the other doesn't seem particularly compelling. P Aculeius (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have to say that I agree with P Aculeius on this. I've often found COMMONNAME offensive to my au courant scholarly poncing, but this is a general encyclopedia that just happens to enjoy some quite strong specialist content: diverging from common usage in favor of hyper-correct scholarly distinctions would be to disregard our audience. Better to adequately discuss the variant spellings than to lead from the less common—even if more correct—form. In cases that might be controversial, we discuss moves before making them, by the way. davidiad { t } 06:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I have cited a number of most reliable sources on the issue of spelling the ruler's name and can cite many more. COMMONNAME is quite clear when it says: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". It's sad when CAH says "Theoderic", people prescribe the errors of the past. Citing Smith's is going back to the errors of the 19th c. Smith giving both forms was progressive for the time. The examples in COMMONNAME don't feature a similar issue. This ruler minted coins using the name "Theodericus": the correct name is clear... at least to our most reputable scholars, such as A.H.M. Jones and more recently Peter Heather and John Moorhead. Returning to the erroneous form here is to reinforce an error that the most reliable sources are trying to rectify and that we can resolve by following good scholarship. To retain "Theodoric" here would be to work against good scholarship by adding inertia and could eventually foil the efforts of scholarship, given the impact Wiki now has. It would be like forcing Wiki to use the common error "Ceylon" when its correct name is "Sri Lanka". Bad habits should be eradicated, rather than institutionalized. -- spin|control 08:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- But that's not the point. Do any of these sources say that one form is correct and the other is not? The fact that Theodoric and Theodorus are two different names from two different sources is hardly news, and it doesn't tell us how Theodoric should be spelled. As Wikipedia's article on the name Theodoric makes clear, the Germanic roots of the name support the form Theodoric. Many variations have been used throughout history, but most of them aren't demonstrably "right" or "wrong." They're a matter of personal preference, and as far as I can see, the common use of "Theoderic" in our time simply reflects a fashionable trend. Unless you can find a scholarly source at the root of this change that says something like, "Theoderic is the form found in all of the ancient historians; Theodoric only appears in modern writers", I think we're dealing with nothing more than a novel (and therefore attractive) hypercorrection. P Aculeius (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- By persistent usage of one form over the other, scholars are demonstrating which they think is correct. It is unreasonable to think they would state "Oh, by the way, 'Theodoric' is wrong." Instead, they are voting with their feet. Google "Theoderic the Great" and count how many scholarly references there are in the first hundred hits. Then do the same with "Theodoric the Great". You will find not one recognizably scholarly reference to "Theodoric the Great". You'll find quite a few for "Theoderic the Great". It is misguided to talk of this issue as a hypercorrection when classicists from J.B. Bury to John Moorhead exclusively use the form. Perhaps you could find several university classics departments which use "Theodoric", but I doubt you'd find one. All the major primary sources use the form, Cassiodorus, Excerpta Valesiana, Ennodius (Panegyric of Theoderic) and the Gesta Theoderici. Internet may be drowning in a see of outdated materials, but Wikipedia doesn't need to go the same way. The reliable sources are clear. -- spin|control 18:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're right to change to "Theoderic". "Theodoric" was accepted in the 19th century but isn't acceptable now. Andrew Dalby 19:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Alas, I (and others) have been trying for years to change Julian the Apostate to Julian (emperor) (currently a redirect) on the grounds that this nickname from Christian polemic is out of keeping with contemporary scholarly tendencies and Wikipedia article titles for other emperors. "Most common" tends to prevail, though I am quite sure "apostate" is not a common word at all, and that most people would understand what topic was represented by Julian (emperor) better than "Julian the Apostate". I know this is rather off the subject, but it seems in some way a similar argument. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- And I agree with Cynwolfe's argument as regards Julian, because that's a case of an epithet (and not a name) pinned on an emperor by his political opponents. This is a very different case. Theodoric is most certainly not an antiquated, 19th Century spelling. It's been used since antiquity. After taking some time to look for ancient sources, I found that they were very much divided on the issue. For instance, the best source on Theodoric the Great, as well as Theodoric I and Theodoric II, seems to be Jordanes, whose history of the Goths was written within a generation of Theodoric's death. He mentions these three kings from chapter 33 to the end (as well as a couple of mentions in the introduction). Jordanes uses the forms Theodoric and Theoderic interchangeably, without any clear intention. Including accusative, genitive, dative, and ablative forms, I counted 26 uses of Theodoric and 16 of Theoderic.
- Muratori's collection of inscriptions shows that there was just as much disagreement during Theodoric's reign:
- p. 266.8: Regnente D.N. Theoderico felix Roma; Regnente D.N. Theoderico bono Romae.
- p. 467.6: Rex Theodericus favente DO et bello gloriosus et otio fabricis suis amoena conjugens sterili palude siccata hos hortos suavi pomorum faecunditate ditavit.
- p. 504.10: D.N. rege Theodorico; D.N. Theodorico rono Rum [read "bono Rom."]; Rege Theodorico felix Roma.
- Which spelling is used in Ennodius seems to depend on which edition you find; so with Gregory of Tours and Sidonius Apollinaris. The Greek spelling is Θευδεριχος, but that doesn't really help us here, since transliterating that would give us Theuderichos. Again, we're not dealing with a case of "right" and "wrong," and you still haven't found any sources that actually explain why they're preferring one spelling to another. If you're going to change an article title from the more widely-accepted form of the name to one found mainly in academic circles, you need more justification than the mere inference that the existence of some recent publications that have adopted the particular variant that you favour makes it more correct. The weight of both popular and historical usage are against a change that's supported by nothing more than the preference of a variation, without any explanation, in a few recent papers. P Aculeius (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your recourse to Greek transliteration only backfires. Obviously, transliteration of medial /k/ into Greek so frequently is realized as chi. That is to be expected. Hebrew Kaph is transliterated into Greek the same way. Theuderichos, given well-known transliteration methods into Greek, is helpful. Incidentally, Mommsen uses Theoderich, but that's the German tradition. It is the source for "Dietrich".
- As I explained on the Theoderic talk page, Two forms of a name as found in Jordanes is indicative of different scribes copying or a scribe well versed in one form frequently falling for their predilection. And I also explained there, it is not reasonable to expect a modern scholar to have to explain why they are using the form they do, when they clearly dissent from past practice. They are stating in its use they think it is the preferable form. World class scholars such as J.B. Bury and A.H.M. Jones used the form in preference to the prevalent form of the 19th c. World class scholarly publishers such as Oxford, Cambridge and Brill, have works that feature "Theoderic". The Italian Cultural Heritage Ministery uses it, both national and regional. Standard resources such as the New Pauly use it. Martindale's Prosopography of the Late Roman Empire endorse it.
- We are interested here in reliable sources. There are none more reliable than those I've cited here and on the Theoderic talk page, Bury, Jones, Moorhead, Heather, as well as Bowersock ("Late Antiquity..."). These are the best known classical scholars of their eras who have worked in late antiquity. They all prefer to use "Theoderic" and that should close the issue. Reliable sources are the backbone of Wikipedia. This is not hypercorrectness or obscurantism. It is the closest English rendering to the name of the person, as advocated by the most reliable sources. -- spin|control 04:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's this fruitful conflict between RS for our text and "common name" for our pagenames: the fruit is e.g. "Prince Harry of Wales", a name rarely if ever written in that form. But this, like poor maligned Julian, is an irrelevance in this thread: sorry! Andrew Dalby 09:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Alas, I (and others) have been trying for years to change Julian the Apostate to Julian (emperor) (currently a redirect) on the grounds that this nickname from Christian polemic is out of keeping with contemporary scholarly tendencies and Wikipedia article titles for other emperors. "Most common" tends to prevail, though I am quite sure "apostate" is not a common word at all, and that most people would understand what topic was represented by Julian (emperor) better than "Julian the Apostate". I know this is rather off the subject, but it seems in some way a similar argument. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're right to change to "Theoderic". "Theodoric" was accepted in the 19th century but isn't acceptable now. Andrew Dalby 19:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- By persistent usage of one form over the other, scholars are demonstrating which they think is correct. It is unreasonable to think they would state "Oh, by the way, 'Theodoric' is wrong." Instead, they are voting with their feet. Google "Theoderic the Great" and count how many scholarly references there are in the first hundred hits. Then do the same with "Theodoric the Great". You will find not one recognizably scholarly reference to "Theodoric the Great". You'll find quite a few for "Theoderic the Great". It is misguided to talk of this issue as a hypercorrection when classicists from J.B. Bury to John Moorhead exclusively use the form. Perhaps you could find several university classics departments which use "Theodoric", but I doubt you'd find one. All the major primary sources use the form, Cassiodorus, Excerpta Valesiana, Ennodius (Panegyric of Theoderic) and the Gesta Theoderici. Internet may be drowning in a see of outdated materials, but Wikipedia doesn't need to go the same way. The reliable sources are clear. -- spin|control 18:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- This doesn't change one thing about the debate, so no, it's not closed. You haven't found or cited a single source that says, asserts, or implies that one form of the name is more correct than another. You haven't presented any source that explains away the use of Theodoricus in Jordanes or in Roman inscriptions dating to the reign of Theodoric. The entire premise of your argument is that if there's an academic trend towards an alternative spelling, it must reflect some sort of mystical revealed truth that requires no explanation, and should be followed unquestioned by the world. Surely that reasoning creates, rather than eliminates, the very kind of arbitrariness that you've flung about and ascribed without a shred of evidence to "19th Century scholars" and "the proliferation of out-of-print sources on the internet".
- You've asserted, without any evidence, that Jordanes' alternating use of Theodoricus and Theodericus is the result of mixed manuscripts, even though he alternates from one to the other on the same page throughout his work. And even if that could be a reasonable explanation, you've provided no basis for deciding which versions come from which manuscript or why one of them should be preferred to the other; if you were going to choose a form based on nothing more than the number of times each form occurs, you would certainly not choose Theoderic. You've provided no evidence that Muratori misread or altered the inscriptions that he collected, based on his preconceptions or wishful thinking; indeed, if that were the case, one would expect to find all of them referring to Theodoric instead of half Theoderic and half Theodoric. The fact that they're not argues that the inscriptions were faithfully copied. But in order to throw out evidence like Jordanes and Muratori, you need to present other evidence on point, not merely speculate about reasons why they might be wrong.
- The only thing that's been established in this debate is that the spelling Theodoric didn't originate in the 18th or 19th century and isn't a mistake of any kind. It dates all the way back to the reign of Theodoric, and there's been absolutely no explanation of any kind as to why, of two variant forms of the name in Latin, one should be preferred to the other. Not from you, or from any one of the sources you keep accumulating, as if this were a sheer popularity contest to see who can gather the longest list. It's an arbitrary decision, since Latin writers used both forms, and nothing is going to change that fact, no matter how many unsupported theories you come up with to dismiss the evidence. The spelling Theodoric has prevailed over time, up to and including its use in the present day. You haven't explained away modern sources that use it, except to assert, without evidence, that they're somehow incorrectly influenced by 19th century sources and the internet. If it's become fashionable in academic circles to use an alternate spelling, that tells us absolutely nothing about the correctness of historical usage, and isn't a justification to throw out established usage in Wikipedia articles. P Aculeius (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you are representing things accurately:
- It's not a matter that "Theoderic" is the right form, but the closest representation in English of the form used during the person's life, therefore the most apt.
- No-one claimed that the form "Theodoric" did "originate in the 18th or 19th century". It wasn't invented, but used then, based on tradition rather than accuracy (like biblical translations that give "of Nazareth" rather than "Nazorean" or "Nazarene").
- You need to explain the inconsistencies in the Jordanes manuscript evidence in a reasonable manner so that you can make claims based on it. It is not sufficient to assert that they represent the original text, as scribal activity is a valid alternative explanation.
- Muratori is not a primary source. He was a scholar of the 18th c. who amongst other things transcribed inscriptions. They are the primary source. Muratori is a level of complication away from them.
I have pointed to the most reliable sources including the most reputed scholars over the last century, the most prominent publishers, and such standard authorities as Martindale's Prosopography. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and there are none more reliable. -- spin|control 04:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- In order to be the closest approximation to the form used during Theodoric's life, you'd have to show which one that is... which you can't do, since there were several different ones used during his life, one of which was Theodoricus. The closest form to Theodoricus in English is Theodoric, not Theoderic. In order to reach your conclusion, you first have to show that only Theodericus was used during his lifetime, or at least that it was by far more common, something for which there is no evidence, and which apparently is not asserted by any of the sources you've cited.
- My point about the 18th and 19th century is that the usage of Theodoric instead of Theoderic can't be ascribed to something done then, at least no more than the spelling of any other name. Theodoric was used before and after that period, so it makes no sense to lay responsibility for its prevalence or familiarity at the hands of 19th century writers, with the implication that it should be abandoned due to association with outdated sources. In fact, the use of Theodoric in 19th century references is completely irrelevant to this debate, since they neither originated it nor did anything other than follow an already existing tradition with respect to the spelling, just as 20th and 21st century writers have done.
- I don't need to explain why Jordanes uses Theodoricus in some places and Theodericus in others. The fact that both are there is prima facie evidence that both forms were used in antiquity; if you want to discount Jordanes, you need to demonstrate with some kind of evidence why he shouldn't be believed. The inference that the differing forms is due to a combination of different manuscripts is only a guess; you haven't cited any source to support that claim. And even if it were true, there isn't any basis for concluding that one manuscript is more or less reliable than the other as to the spelling of Theodoric's name. Once the evidence has been presented, the burden is on the person who wants to discredit it to demonstrate why it shouldn't be believed. Speculating that multiple manuscripts must somehow have been involved, and somehow going from that inference to the conclusion that the twenty-six references to Theodoricus are the result of the inaccurate manuscript, doesn't meet that standard.
- Transcribed inscriptions are very much primary evidence for how things were spelled in antiquity. You can't ignore them merely because they were collected by Muratori, or because Muratori lived in the 18th century. All of the evidence we have from inscriptions was collected by scholars such as Muratori, but you aren't arguing that all inscriptions should be disregarded; surely you're not arguing that only inscriptions copied in the 20th or 21st century should be considered, and that all earlier scholarship should be regarded as unreliable, and therefore safely ignored.
- You can't just choose to ignore evidence because you don't like the conclusions it would force you to draw, and you can't rely on mere speculation, unsupported by any evidence, that those sources are unreliable. Nor is it fair to infer from the use of a variant spelling in some recent sources that the variation you prefer is better than the dominant form up to this time. If any of those sources actually asserted it was better or provided an explanation for the preference, then there'd be some kind of evidence, whether or not it were persuasive. But at this stage you haven't cited any such evidence; all you have is the fact that some authors have chosen to use it (while others have not). Without even one clear explanation from any source, the difference between Theodoric and Theoderic represents nothing more than your personal preference. Now, if a clear consensus develops in this community that prefers one form over another, it would be appropriate to change it based on personal preference. But we don't have a clear consensus. There wasn't even any discussion before the page was renamed. That's why it should be returned to the way it was until a consensus for changing it can be achieved. P Aculeius (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you've made any progress here. Your chorus of nothing more than your personal preference is just as unjustified as when you first used the idea. Your assertion about what Jordanes used is based on a copied manuscript, nothing directly from Jordanes, so scribal concerns, such as fatigue, are legitimate. Sadly Muratori is not a primary source. Ultimately, the only indicator Wikipedia uses is reliable sources. -- spin|control 07:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Since discussion has split, I have now added a comment at Talk:Theoderic the Great. That seems to me the proper place. Andrew Dalby 09:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't find the Theodoricus argument convincing. Here is my take on this matter: Apparently, the vowel in question clearly comes from an o but is unstressed and therefore was pronounced in a neutral way that is closer to e. Contemporaries apparently oscillated between etymological and phonetic spelling. In variants of the name in which the vowel was stressed (Théodóricus), it unsurprisingly was an o again.
- In German it still seems to be like that. We use Theóderìch for the historical people of that name and Théodòr as a modern name. (Accents added to indicate primary and secondary stress.) So we use e where the vowel is unstressed and o where it has a secondary stress.
- Both spellings are correct and there is little reason to get excited. My personal preference would be to go with whatever is the spelling preferred by English-speaking scholars over the last 50 years or so. Hans Adler 10:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you've made any progress here. Your chorus of nothing more than your personal preference is just as unjustified as when you first used the idea. Your assertion about what Jordanes used is based on a copied manuscript, nothing directly from Jordanes, so scribal concerns, such as fatigue, are legitimate. Sadly Muratori is not a primary source. Ultimately, the only indicator Wikipedia uses is reliable sources. -- spin|control 07:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Julian article title
Being the person who rescued the Julian article from hagiography, I also would like to see the article with a neutral title which represents the usage of the most reliable sources. Is it time to put the issue again on the Julian talk page? I'd prefer using "Julian" as the title, shifting the current list of Julian names to "Julian (given name)" and using the about template to point to other people and other uses. To find Eric Bana's character in the Star Trek movie, I'd go to the Nero article and get pointed to "Nero (disambiguation)" to find a link. Similarly, to get to the star of Nip/Tuck, I'd go to the Julian article and find a link to "Julian (given name)". But I can live with "Julian (emperor)" or any reasonable alternative. So, is it time to request a move? and if so how about a three week period for consultation? -- spin|control 04:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:ROMANS unhelpfully states: Roman emperors are generally considered the primary topic for generic names. Titus, Claudius, and Nero are all articles on Roman emperors, even though these are generic names shared by many other Romans. There are however exceptions. I fear that our Julian might be an exception, since his common name is an Anglicized name. Now, if I'm looking for Julian MacMahon (and I blush to say I did not have to look that up), I'm going to expect to type in both names, so I suppose an argument could be made for the emperor as the primary topic for the mononym. But "good luck" are the first words to spring to mind. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The cited exception is useful: For instance, the name Tacitus is most commonly associated with the senator and historian Tacitus, not the emperor Marcus Claudius Tacitus. There is already a more famous example of a person called Tacitus. A case would have to be made that there is a better candidate for the name "Julian" than the emperor, which seems unlikely. (The blush would be that you've admitted having watched Nip/Tuck!) -- spin|control 03:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the article's talk page, it seems to have been 2-3 years since it was last seriously discussed. I don't want to start another major war over the issue, but there might be a less-contentious approach. I propose a simple straw poll, with minimal or no debate over the reasons why the article should be renamed, or how many sources suffix the Apostate to his name. Not sure if it should be a one-part or a two-part poll, but a two-part poll might minimize bias against changing the name, arising from disagreement over what to change it to. Something like this:
- Should the article Julian the Apostate be renamed, removing the words the Apostate?
- If the article is renamed, what should it be called?
- Flavius Claudius Julianus;
- Julianus;
- Julian;
- Julian (emperor);
- Julian (Roman emperor)
- If you want to pare down the number of choices, that's fine with me. I think that "Julian (emperor)" is probably the strongest candidate, since few people could be expected to know Julian's full name, and using the Latin form Julianus as a title might seem pedantic (although I would begin the article with "Flavius Claudius Julianus, the emperor Julian, sometimes called Julian the Apostate..." or something along those lines). Julian by itself seems ambiguous, since as has been pointed out, it's a common name in English, as well as referring to Julian of Norwich and others. Julian (Roman emperor) would introduce an unnecessary element, since as far as I know there weren't any other emperors named Julian. Thoughts? P Aculeius (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I like the idea of two steps, as it is a logical process leading to a reasonable choice, but, having seen two votes on the subject, I'd say that the unsure would be diffident to change without knowing what to before voting and those who were lax to change would use the lack of upfront alternative to encourage no change. In a different world I'd wholeheartedly support the two step approach.
- Having a disambiguation link at the top of the article should make it easy for those who get to the article through any confusion. And having an extra step to get to the Julian (given name) article might be added discouragement for those who frequently vandalize it. -- spin|control 03:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the article's talk page, it seems to have been 2-3 years since it was last seriously discussed. I don't want to start another major war over the issue, but there might be a less-contentious approach. I propose a simple straw poll, with minimal or no debate over the reasons why the article should be renamed, or how many sources suffix the Apostate to his name. Not sure if it should be a one-part or a two-part poll, but a two-part poll might minimize bias against changing the name, arising from disagreement over what to change it to. Something like this:
- That is a legitimate concern. But I think the risk is minimized if you present it as one two-part question, rather than requiring everyone to vote on the first one before they know what the alternatives being chosen from are. Perhaps it would be even better if we narrowed down the choices to a maximum of two or three. Personally I would throw out the full name, since nobody can be expected to use it to look for the emperor; I'd also throw out Julian (Roman emperor) since I don't think that degree of specificity is necessary. And while I think it's fine to refer to Julian as Julianus, I also think that's more of an antiquarian habit, and the discussion here is about a title that will be both recognizable to typical readers, and appropriately dignified. That leaves Julian or Julian (emperor).
- I'm not too concerned about losing this one; that just means things stay the same a little bit longer. I first encountered Julian as "Julian the Apostate," without knowing what an apostate was; now that I know, I do find it rather offensive. Although I think I disagree with a point that I think was made by Cynwolfe a while back; I don't find "pagan" at all offensive, and think it would be a perfectly appropriate description; perhaps not because the early Christians used the word that way, but the actual meaning of the word is pretty inoffensive, and today the term seems to have lost much of its pejorative force. The scholars who've written about Julian over the last three hundred years seem to have appreciated Julian's tolerance and the virtues of the pagan gods; they were sympathetic, but used the word "pagan" anyway, not because it was pejorative but because it was the best and most familiar description. Even today we don't have any comparable word for those who worshipped Greek or Roman deities. But I digress... it's not a big deal if we still don't have a consensus for changing the article; if it's close, we can try again later.
- Before we put this out there, though, I'd like to hear from those on this page who might have an opinion. Do you think that the best option would be Julian, Julian (emperor), or something else? As I already said, I think that Julian (emperor) would be the best choice, because it avoids the ambiguity inherent in Julian, since that's a familiar name. Whether the name is more or less familiar than the emperor is debatable (and probably unprovable), but taking a cue from the disambiguation guidelines, I wouldn't say that the emperor is much more familiar than all of the other uses of the name combined, and that means there's some ambiguity, which argues in favour of keeping Julian a disambiguation page. P Aculeius (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would go with "Julian (emperor)". Many people have heard of him, but, for the multitude who haven't, there are a number of other Julians any of which may be at the front of someone's mind; therefore, as PA says, keep "Julian" as a disambig page. Andrew Dalby 09:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks P Aculeius for setting out the arguments so well, I support the idea. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Before we put this out there, though, I'd like to hear from those on this page who might have an opinion. Do you think that the best option would be Julian, Julian (emperor), or something else? As I already said, I think that Julian (emperor) would be the best choice, because it avoids the ambiguity inherent in Julian, since that's a familiar name. Whether the name is more or less familiar than the emperor is debatable (and probably unprovable), but taking a cue from the disambiguation guidelines, I wouldn't say that the emperor is much more familiar than all of the other uses of the name combined, and that means there's some ambiguity, which argues in favour of keeping Julian a disambiguation page. P Aculeius (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Salting of Carthage
Various Wikipedia articles claim that the notion of Carthage being salted is a 19th century invention. Example articles are Third Punic War and Salting the earth. However, the latter article also includes a mention of a thirteenth century Pope expressing that idea, which demolishes the idea of it being a nineteenth century thing. Is the Pope quote accurate, and if so, how do we deal with the error, given that it is cited? And finally, given that half of the statement (the century) is factually incorrect, is the overall premise suspect - could it be true that Carthage was indeed salted? --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Salting the earth says without citation that it wasn't even possible, but it occurs to me that low lying parts might have been salted by controlled flooding and evaporation. Or could salting have been a technical term for weed control that could also be applied to other, more effective methods? Hans Adler 11:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do wish people would stop attributing every crackpot idea or myth to 19th century scholars... if they had any idea how much good work was done in classics during that period, we wouldn't be having half as many stupid arguments... P Aculeius (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)