Talk:Attalus I/Archive 1

Fantastic
Fantastic new article; where did the content come from? Have you been writing about Attalus recently offline? I love it. +sj + 22:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm glad you liked it. The "content" came from my head, and the references I cited in the article, especially Ester Hansen's great book, The Attalids of Pergamon ;-) I'm hoping to write articles about the rest ot the Attalids as well. I've already done the previous two: Philetaerus (282 BC–263 BC) and Eumenes I (263 BC–241 BC). Paul August 22:40, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes please! Wetman 18:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Footnotes?
This is great, but is it necessary to have so many footnotes, or even footnotes at all? It makes it look like an essay. It seems like it would make a better article if you just included the sources rather than the footnotes. Adam Bishop 03:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam, for a bit of my take (and others) on footnotes see below.  If the disscussion below leaves you unconvinced, I'd be happy to discuss this some more;-) Paul August 17:21, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Footnotes do rather undercut the enjoyable exercise of factless argumentation that fill so many entertaining pages of Discussion at Wikipedia. Cut the documentation, and then we'll challenge the facts one by one! ;-) Wetman 18:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * ;-) Paul August 00:53, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of footnotes from "Featured article candidates" page
(The following was excerpted from Featured_article_candidates, the ellipses are mine: Paul August 17:21, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC) - For complete discussion text see below. Paul August 22:52, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)) … …
 * Egads, that's a good reference section! Support! Neutralitytalk 23:59, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support; the footnotes are mindboggling. Makes me feel inadequate on my own articles. :) --Golbez 01:16, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. … 3) I don't think it is necessary to footnote each and every fact mentioned in the article. Any fact coming directly from any of the listed references (Livius, Polibius, etc.) shouldn't need footnoting, since these it is silently assumed that most information in the article comes from these sources. Furthermore, it makes the article look overly "messy" in my opinion. I would say to only footnotes when quoting sources otherwise not used (such as note nr. 7) or when sources are contradictory or exceptional in their remarks. … Jeronimo 06:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that the text would look cleaner without the footnotes. But I'm opposed to removing most of the footnotes. I think the "messy" look is far outweighed by the value of the information contained in the footnotes. (for example, I can't tell you how many times i've referred to the text mentioned in these footnotes when editing other parts of this as well as several other articles.) Yes, without the footnotes, the reader would still know that the article was based on the sources listed in the "references" section, but they wouldn't know which part of the article was based on which part of which sources. These texts comprise a couple of thousand or so pages, and believe me, it's not particularly easy (for me at least) to find the text upon which a given statement in the article is based. I think there is a strong analogy here with regard to links. I also find links visually distracting, but this is, of course, more than compensated for by the information they provide. I think that one of the reasons, the footnotes look "messy", is because they are so uncommon on Wikipedia (but I don't think they should be), and I think, just as in the case of links, one can, with familiarity, train one's eyes to ignore them. I believe that Wikipedia is weak in the the area of source citation. And I think we should encourage citation of sources (the more detailed the better ;-) rather than discourage it. If the consensus is that a "featured article" shouldn't have so many footnotes, then I'd vote to keep the footnotes and have it be an "unfeatured article" ;-). (Bias alert: I'm the main contributer to this article ;-) Paul August 20:01, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Besides, how do you think I keep my edit count so high? If we do decide to remove all my precious footnotes please let me do it, one-at-a-time ;-) Paul August 20:11, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * As to footnotes, I want to say two things. 1) I believe strongly that we should have as much detail in footnoting as possible -- see the recently started fact-checking project for a discussion of why highly granular references are useful.  2) A well-footnoted article is more beautiful to me than its counterpart; like a little stamp of guaranteed information density.  There will eventually be better footnote support, allowing users to jump directly to them, to show/hide them, etc.  I would hate to see the work that went into these lavish footnotes undone for the sake of temporary aesthetic.  +sj +  06:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Re footnotes: I agree (now) that these should not be removed because they look ugly, they should only be removed if they are unnecessary, and I currently think many of these are unnecessary. Personally, I think that we only need footnotes when: 1) directly quoting somebody 2) when listing somebody's opinion on the article's subject 3) when the fact mentioned is disputed by other sources.
 * For example, it seems to me that "Attalus was the son of Attalus and Antiochis" needs no footnote, just like there is no source for the information on who his brother was. However, the sentence "According to Pausanias "the greatest of his achievements" was the defeat of the Galatian Gauls" should get one.
 * If there is a problem with the fact that the references works are very large (thousands of pages), mention the page numbers or chapters that were used to narrow it a bit down. Jeronimo 12:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, that "Attalus was the son of Attalus and Antiochis" doesn't need to be footnoted, but I still find it useful to have the footnote. Every statement in this article is a summarization and/or an interpretation of someone else's words. I think it is useful to let the reader know whose words, and where they were written, so they can judge for themselves if the summaries and interpretations are accurate. (The reason I haven't yet included source information for the newly added content is because I wanted that content and this issue to be settled first ;-) … Paul August 17:19, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

(End of excerpt)


 * As I said above on the talk page, a footnote like that makes it read more like an essay than an article. It would be out of place in an essay too, since it's not disputed or controversial, it's not the opinion of some author or another, like Jeronimo said. If this was an essay, you might be expected to prove an argument, with footnotes as a backup, but this is not meant to be original research. In an encyclopedia article you're just giving a biography, not making an argument about some aspect of his life. Adam Bishop 05:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is your opinion that it reads like an essay and I respect it. However, the solution is to have MediaWiki updated to allow for a footnote markup language, I suggest < > around text that autonumbers the footnotes and quote them.  The footnotes can be a preference that can be turned off and on.  This way everyone is happy, people who want it will turn it on, those who are not will not. --ShaunMacPherson 03:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't the footnotes, its that Wikipedia does not give the option to hide them. If someone wants more information about the varacity of a certain fact they should have the ability to 'turn on' footnotes and observe.  If they do not want footnotes, because it can interfere with the flow of reading, then they can leave it off.
 * It is my hope, shared by a few others here that all facts will eventually be footnoted and referenced. It is the cure to Wikipedia's #1 problem and complaint - that its not accurate.  Here is a sample of what can be done with *current* Wikimarkup, but if we had footnote markup put in, it would be a lot nicer looking and easier to use. --ShaunMacPherson 03:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, what if I wanted the option to see the footnotes, but to hide the ones that aren't useful or necessary? Adam Bishop 04:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I don't know what you mean by "makes it look like an essay". Could you elaborate? I'd really like to understand your objection. To me the only problem with footnotes is that they are visually distracting, Just like links are. Paul August 05:01, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to find a way to articulate my objection...it's not that it has the structure of an essay, but the footnotes make it resemble one, and seem to suggest that there are statements or contentions or arguments that you want to prove. I see in the first three footnotes, for example, that each ancient author says something slightly different, like he reigned 43 or 44 years, but...so what? Are you trying to prove it one way or the other? It's like it'a almost too much information for an encyclopedia. I'd give the sources at the end, so people can read them for themselves. I think my objection is something like "this is not an encyclopedia article" but I know I'm not explaining myself properly. Adam Bishop 18:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If I may interject - The problem is this isnt a 'normal' encyclopedia since there are not 'experts' who verify the relability of the data. It could very well be in truth that Wikipedia is more accurate, but this is *not* the perception.  The way to counter the percpetion that wikipedia is inaccurate is to have fact checking that is visible, transparent and available for viewing.


 * I see no downside to solving Wikipedia's #1 achelles heel, criticism of unreliable facts. If we can get actual wikimarkup to include intelligent footnotes, then it can only make it more visually appealing for everyone.  If you know or are a programmer for Mediawiki please consider pushing up footnote markup up the task list. --ShaunMacPherson 22:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, that seems to be a case of "We need to solve Wikipedia's criticism, and this is Wikipedia's #1 criticism; this is a possible solution, we must do this." It doesn't necessary follow that this is the best way to do it. Adam Bishop 01:55, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Adam, thanks for attempting to explain your objection to me, I really appreciate it, especially when I can see It was something of a struggle, and you are not completely satisfied with it. I think I understand a bit better why footnotes bother you. I have a few things to say in response:
 * … it's not that it has the structure of an essay, but the footnotes make it resemble one


 * Most encyclopedias articles are not footnoted like this one is, the footnotes are particularly dense here. So that probably accounts for why it doesn't "resemble" one. But because such heavily footnoted articles are uncommon doesn't mean they're bad. I suspect that one of the reasons that footnotes are rare is for reasons of space, which doesn't apply here. But whatever the reason, we need not follow fashion. To quote the Bard, who has Henry V say to Kate, after she has refused a kiss on the grounds that it's not the fashion in France for maids to kiss before marriage:
 * O Kate! nice customs curtsy to great kings. Dear Kate, you and I cannot be confined within the weak list of a country’s fashion: we are the makers of manners, Kate


 * Links aren't in most encyclopedias either ;-)


 * … I see in the first three footnotes, for example, that each ancient author says something slightly different, like he reigned 43 or 44 years, but...so what? Are you trying to prove it one way or the other?


 * No I'm not trying to prove anything. The footnote is there so the reader can tell where these "facts" come from, and that while the article "declares" that he was born in 269 BC and died in 197 BC, there is a small controversy about this (by the way, a controversial fact is one of the few times above where Jeronamo does support footnotes) . I admit that this may not be all that important, but you never know, "garbage in, garbage out" ;-)


 * … It's like it'a almost too much information for an encyclopedia.


 * An encyclopedia having too much information, sounds to me like a contradiction in terms. An encyclopedia is supposed to be well encyclopedic ;-), quoting From the Wikimedia Foundation home page: our goal to provide "access to the sum of all human knowledge."


 * … I'd give the sources at the end, so people can read them for themselves.


 * Nothing in an encyclopedia is new information. Everything in it is available elsewhere. So why encyclopedias at all? The point of an encyclopedia is not to provide new information but to provide an easier way to access old information. Source citation is just another step in that direction. It makes it easier to access the information contained in the sources. Sure we could just say to the reader, "well if you wonder where this fact comes from just read these five books, each around 500 pages long, and in some paragraph on some page in one of them you'll find it." Piece-a-cake no? ;-) I think citing sources, is a value-added resource for the reader. It let's them know where to go to verify a fact, to check an interpretation, to investigate the reliability of a source, to read more on an aspect of the subject  etc. It's for the readers convenience.


 * Does any of this make sense? Paul August 05:12, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suppose so. To really make myself clear I would probably have to go through every footnote one by one, but I don't particularly feel like doing that :) Adam Bishop 19:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough ;-) Again, thanks for your thoughts. Paul August 22:52, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Whose translation?
and much worse shall God do/ To those who dwell by the shores of the sea/ Shall a short while. This seems to be nonsense, even by the standards of oracles. Whose translation is this? Markalexander100 09:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * From the references:
 * Pausanias, Description of Greece, Books I-II, (Loeb Classical Library) translated by W. H. S. Jones; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. (1918) ISBN 0674991044. (See:)
 * If you follow the above external link, you'll find at the bottom of that page, "H.A. Ormerod, M.A." is also listed as a translator. Why is this "nonsense" exactly? Feel free to supply a better translation ;-) Paul August 17:50, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Shall a short while what? There seems to be a verb missing. I also don't understand the dear son of a bull reared Zeus: did the son of a bull rear Zeus? Or is this person the son of Zeus, who was reared by a bull? Neither seems very likely. Markalexander100 05:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh I see now. The're both typos ;-) I've just fixed them. It should have read:


 * Then verily, having crossed the narrow strait of the Hellespont,
 * The devastating host of the Gauls shall pipe; and lawlessly
 * They shall ravage Asia; and much worse shall God do
 * To those who dwell by the shores of the sea
 * For a short while. For right soon the son of Cronos
 * ''Shall raise a helper, the dear son of a bull reared by Zeus
 * Who on all the Gauls shall bring a day of destruction.


 * Does that make more sense now? Thanks. Paul August 06:01, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! Markalexander100 06:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Achaeus' capture - story?
Under the pretense of a rescue, Achaeus was finally captured. This is a bit Delphic. Is there a story to be told here? Markalexander100 08:02, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, quite an amazing story, told by Polybius, complete with Cretan spys, encoded messages, a double cross, attempts to "out cretan a Cretan", a disguised king spirited from the citadel by night, an ambush, a grisly death, a distraught Queen watching from on high, and more. It reads like a "Mission Impossible" episode. Probably the most dramatic passage in any of the ancient histories, It goes on for several pages but it's a great read:  Paul August 16:36, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

FA candidacy discussion
(The following is the complete text of the Featured_article_candidates discussion for this article. Paul August 22:52, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC))

Sort of a self-nom, since I created the first stub ages ago. Fantastic new work by Paul A.; now feature-worthy. +sj + 23:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Egads, that's a good reference section! Support! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:59, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support; the footnotes are mindboggling. Makes me feel inadequate on my own articles. :) --Golbez 01:16, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Shorne 03:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Lead section does not even tell who he is to someone that does not already know what Pergamon is, much less why he is important, notable, or what he did or accomplished. Otherwise seems well researched and written. I certainly prefer inline citations (it makes it so you don't have to move to the bottom of the page and back to check the footnote every time), but that is definitely not something to object over. - Taxman 03:14, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but how different is it from saying Babylon, or Crete, or Rome, or Gaul? It's an extinct kingdom. But I agree, it could be phrased just a tad bit better. --Golbez 03:22, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the lead section and added an "Early life" section Paul August 18:43, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but still object on basically the same grounds. Is who his second cousin is really one of the several most important things about him?  Why was the fact that he was the first in his dynasty to take the title king important?  Also, what was important about the victory over the Gauls?  Did it have any impact?  A two paragraph lead section summarizing all of the most important things about him would not be out of the question for an article this size. - Taxman 17:07, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * No need to be sorry, I think your comments are constructive ;-) His relationship to the previous ruler Eumenes I (he was also his adoptive son - which I've now added) as well as him being the first king of Pergamon, are in my opinion fairly important. Do you think these facts should come later in the article? I've added some content regarding the significance of his victory over the Gauls, do you think this is sufficient? I'm hesitant to add much more content which would essentially duplicate what comes almost immediately below. Paul August 20:08, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know if they need to come later. I just don't know what is important and why and the intro certainly doesn't tell me.  It should.  Any good intro needs to be a summary of the most important points of the subject with an eye towards why they are important.  That neccessarily will duplicate some information.  Nothing wrong with that.  Having the overview eases the reader in, then the details in the article are more comprehensive. And yes the significance of beating the Gauls is helpful. - Taxman 03:13, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok I've considerably expanded the lead section. Is this any better? Paul August 06:09, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Good article, needs a few changes to get my support though. 1) As Taxman indicated, the lead section is inadequate. Instead of telling why Attalus I was so important, it adds unimportant facts about who his mother may have been. The lead section should give a short summary of the article, and introduce the subject of the article. See Lead section. 2) It is hard to understand the article, or even the lead section, without some context. This doesn't take a lot of work or text. E.g. "ruler of Pergamon, a Greek city state in present-day Turkey" makes the article much more readable. Adding such context is necessary for the entire article. 3) I don't think it is necessary to footnote each and every fact mentioned in the article. Any fact coming directly from any of the listed references (Livius, Polibius, etc.) shouldn't need footnoting, since these it is silently assumed that most information in the article comes from these sources. Furthermore, it makes the article look overly "messy" in my opinion. I would say to only footnotes when quoting sources otherwise not used (such as note nr. 7) or when sources are contradictory or exceptional in their remarks. 4) The article, after mentioning his relatives in the opening, immediately starts with Attalus's victory over the Galatian Gauls. I would like to see some more about his early life, or how he became king (he was not the son of his predecessor). I can image there's little information about his childhood, but I would expect something available aobut how he succeeded Eumenes I. If there's nothing known about that either, I think mentioning that is also useful. 5) I don't mind using direct quotations in articles, but the entire "Wife and sons" section consists of quotations. I personally prefer more of Wikipedia's own prose here. (This is not part of my objection.) 6) Another image would be nice as well (Again, not part of my objection). Jeronimo 06:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the lead section and added an "Early life" section Paul August 18:43, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that the text would look cleaner without the footnotes. But I'm opposed to removing most of the footnotes. I think the "messy" look is far outweighed by the value of the information contained in the footnotes. (for example, I can't tell you how many times i've referred to the text mentioned in these footnotes when editing other parts of this as well as several other articles.) Yes, without the footnotes, the reader would still know that the article was based on the sources listed in the "references" section, but they wouldn't know which part of the article was based on which part of which sources. These texts comprise a couple of thousand or so pages, and believe me, it's not particularly easy (for me at least) to find the text upon which a given statement in the article is based. I think there is a strong analogy here with regard to links. I also find links visually distracting, but this is, of course, more than compensated for by the information they provide. I think that one of the reasons, the footnotes look "messy", is because they are so uncommon on Wikipedia (but I don't think they should be), and I think, just as in the case of links, one can, with familiarity, train one's eyes to ignore them. I believe that Wikipedia is weak in the the area of source citation. And I think we should encourage citation of sources (the more detailed the better ;-) rather than discourage it. If the consensus is that a "featured article" shouldn't have so many footnotes, then I'd vote to keep the footnotes and have it be an "unfeatured article" ;-). (Bias alert: I'm the main contributer to this article ;-) Paul August 20:01, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Besides, how do you think I keep my edit count so high? If we do decide to remove all my precious footnotes please let me do it, one-at-a-time ;-) Paul August 20:11, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * As to footnotes, I want to say two things. 1) I believe strongly that we should have as much detail in footnoting as possible -- see the recently started fact-checking project for a discussion of why highly granular references are useful.  2) A well-footnoted article is more beautiful to me than its counterpart; like a little stamp of guaranteed information density.  There will eventually be better footnote support, allowing users to jump directly to them, to show/hide them, etc.  I would hate to see the work that went into these lavish footnotes undone for the sake of temporary aesthetic.  +sj +  06:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Re footnotes: I agree (now) that these should not be removed because they look ugly, they should only be removed if they are unnecessary, and I currently think many of these are unnecessary. Personally, I think that we only need footnotes when: 1) directly quoting somebody 2) when listing somebody's opinion on the article's subject 3) when the fact mentioned is disputed by other sources.
 * For example, it seems to me that "Attalus was the son of Attalus and Antiochis" needs no footnote, just like there is no source for the information on who his brother was. However, the sentence "According to Pausanias "the greatest of his achievements" was the defeat of the Galatian Gauls" should get one.
 * If there is a problem with the fact that the references works are very large (thousands of pages), mention the page numbers or chapters that were used to narrow it a bit down. Jeronimo 12:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, that "Attalus was the son of Attalus and Antiochis" doesn't need to be footnoted, but I still find it useful to have the footnote. Every statement in this article is a summarization and/or an interpretation of someone else's words. I think it is useful to let the reader know whose words, and where they were written, so they can judge for themselves if the summaries and interpretations are accurate. (The reason I haven't yet included source information for the newly added content is because I wanted that content and this issue to be settled first ;-) by the way you haven't yet said whether the new content is satisfactory. Is it?) Paul August 17:19, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * As for the other objections: they are solved. Jeronimo 07:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could Taxman, and Jeronimo please respond as to whether any of there of their objections have been addressed by the recent edits? Or if they haven't been addressed adequately, could they please say what else needs to be done? (Jeronimo: I realize that the footnote are still there, I'm still pondering that question and I'll have more to say on the matter - I don't suppose you've been swayed at all by my last comment have you ;-) Thanks in advance Paul August 15:18, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the kind of article I always hope to find when browsing the 'pedia. {&Alpha;&nu;&#940;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu;} 11:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Markalexander100 05:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok the lead section still needs some work. The sentence "He was the second cousin and the adoptive son of Eumenes I2, whom he succeeded, and was the first of the Attalid dynasty to assume the title of king" seems like it could be removed since the second part is now repeated later in the intro and the first does not seem all that important (and is covered later in the article).  2). There are a number of one sentence paragraph, which need to be expanded or merged with another paragraph. 3.) Overall the article has the typical ancient Greek POV that the Greeks were good and everyone else was bad.  An example is "Galatians had posed a problem for Pergamon, indeed for all of Asia Minor." So the conquests of Attalus are glorious, but the other side is a problem for everyone? The section headings of defeat and conquests promote this too. 4.) Overall the writing is very difficult to follow, but because it is mostly due to apparently correct, albeit complicated sentence structure, I will not object only on a basis such as that.  Specifically the Early life section though, has too many clauses in each sentence and would not lose anything if it were simplified a bit. - Taxman 16:09, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) As I said above, his relationship to the previous ruler of Pergamon, and his kingship are of considerable importance. He became important because he was king, and he became king because of his relationship to Eumenes. Encyclopedia Britannica and The Oxford Classical Dictionary seem to agree. Both, include this information in their first two sentences in their articles about him. These facts are part of the "definition" of who he is. They answer the question: "Which Attalus was that?" (there were more than one);  answer:  "The successor to Eumenes I" or "You know, the first king of Pergamon";  response: "Oh yeah that guy."  Yes the relationship to Eumenes is mentioned again in the "Early life" section, but as you said above "Any good intro needs to be a summary of the most important points of the subject with an eye towards why they are important. That neccessarily will duplicate some information" I agree the repetition of the phrase 'the title of "king"' (I've changed this slightly) in the first paragraph and second paragraphs, was not good. But the reason for mentioning his kingship in the second paragraph was to explain how he gained the title, and to answer, in part, your question: "&#8230; what was so important about the victory over the Gauls".
 * Some good points, but the intro still doesn't say who Eumenes is or why he is important to anyone that doesn't already know. But if it is that standard, fine.  In general just because two sources do it one way does not mean it can't be improved to say why this guy is important.
 * But the intro does say who Eumenes I is and why he is important, specifically it says that Attalus I "was the second cousin and the adoptive son of Eumenes I, whom he succeeded,". Thus Eumenes is identified as the predecessor to Attalus as ruler of Pergamon, which is also why he was important. Paul August 16:16, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I found two one sentence paragraphs, and have eliminated them.


 * 3) According to Livy:


 * A large body of Gauls, induced either by want of room or desire for plunder &#8230; marched &#8230;into the country of the Dardani &#8230; Fighting with those who opposed their progress and exacting tribute from those who asked for peace &#8230;they went further into Asia. Out of the 20,000 men not more than 10,000 were carrying arms, yet so great was the terror they inspired in all the nations west of the Taurus, that those who had no experience of them, as well as those who had come into contact with them, the most remote as well as their next neighbours, all alike submitted to them.  They levied tribute on the whole of Asia west of the Taurus, but fixed their own settlement on both sides of the Halys. Such was the terror of their name and the growth of their numbers that at last even the kings of Syria did not dare to refuse the payment of tribute.


 * The Gauls were a "problem" for Pergamon (as I am sure Pergamon was a problem for the Gauls). This statement is not meant to (nor as far as I can tell does it) indicate that the Pergamene were in any way superior to the Gauls. Would you please offer alternative, less POV wording for "Galatians had posed a problem for Pergamon, indeed for all of Asia Minor." As for the section titles "Defeat of the Gauls" and "Conquests in Seleucid Asia Minor" the first is meant to describe the event whereby Attalus met the Gauls in battle and won, the second is meant to describe the expansion of territory, (not at the expense of the Gauls by the way) in that part of Asia Minor previously controlled by the Seleucid empire. Why are these headings POV? Can you think of better ones? Paul August 01:52, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well I couldn't think of much better titles right away or I would have changed them. Conquest connotes ideas like valor and superiority.  Defeat is fine, it is more factual.  I can't even figure out what is going on and follow who is who in the Conquests section, so I don't know what a better title there is.  I think I fixed a bit of the "Gaul problem", by noting what made them a problem closer to the sentence in question. Don't forget Livy was a Roman and Rome had been sacked by the Gauls, so he is hardly unbiased himself. - Taxman 04:35, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think the word "conquests" is anymore POV, than "defeat". Webster: Conquest: 1. The act or process of conquering, or acquiring by force; 2. That which is conquered; possession gained by force, physical or moral. In the section heading "Conquests in Seleucid Asia Minor", the word is being used in both the above senses (which I rather like).  I don't think that "conquest" connotes a "valorous superiority" any more than it connotes a "brutal subjugation". Rather it's the action itself which is POV laden. In any victory or defeat, there are the victorious and the vanquished and they each will naturally enough have their own POV. Of course the word then inherits the POV, but it inherits both a positive and a negative one. In my opinion, the POVs are symmetric, and thus (more or less) balance out. To rule out the use of such words as "conquest" and "defeat" as too POV, is to impoverish the language.


 * Having said all that, if nevertheless "conquests" must go, then I propose: "Hostile takeovers in Seleucid Asia Minor". Just kidding ;-) this came to mind as i was considering the phrase "territorial acquisitions" as a possible alternative to "conquests". Seriously though, if you can't abide "conquests"  how about "Territorial expansion in Seleucid Asia Minor"? It's less concise, dryer, more boring and contains (unfortunately) only the first meaning of "conquest" given above - but it probably is less POV.


 * Yes, of course, Livy is biased, but the collective scholarly judgment would be, I think, that he's not so biased as to fabricate that the Gauls were extracting tribute and plundering throughout Cis-Tauric Asia Minor. But anything's possible ;-), (Jeronimo: that's one of the reasons for citing the source of this in the footnotes ;-). I think his bias would extend only so far as to characterize such actions as "brutal" or "barbaric" say. Paul August 17:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Support: Livy is biased, and the view you hit in some historians is that Atalus was a toady of Rome who was really out to take Macedonia out of the picture and balance against Antiochus. At any rate, it's great to see a Hellenistic topic nominated, and this is a well researched article.  Quarrels over minor wording are somewhat beside the point.  This is a good balance to some of the contemporary events (which should be there, but as part of a mix) in the FA's. Geogre 18:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abbreviated references
I recently made some changes to experiment with a new idea of mine called abbreviated references. The idea is that each reference is associated with an abbreviation &mdash; in this case I used last names &mdash; and then the footnotes section uses these and links to the line of the page giving all the details of the reference. This makes references easier to update, footnotes easier to add, and makes the footnotes section neater. What are your thoughts? Deco 03:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Having only the last name of the author (along with a date of publication say, if there are more than one work by the author in the in the "References" section) is typical for footnotes. The reason for this is primarily for reasons of space, and the convenience of the writer and/or editor. Since space is not much of an issue for us, I chose to repeat the full reference in the footnotes to maximize reader convenience, over editor convenience. Although I suppose it does, as you say, look "neater", and in any case it isn't much more (or less) convenient either way.  However I don't like the look of the "References" section now.  It looks unusual to say the least.  In this case, since the bolded "abbreviation" is the same as the last name, it adds no information, and is confusing. I think they should go. Paul August 17:04, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Done, and thanks for the feedback. Deco 21:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Div tags for references?
Why? Is there some reason that we've chosen to go down this route? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is picture of tired boxer labeled Attalus?
Like the Dying Gaul, this is a famous Roman statue, but I've never seen it labeled Attalus. Doesn't the man have the boxing "gloves" on his hands? alteripse 12:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree this image is suspect, unless someone can provide source information, it should probably be removed from the article. I've copied the relevant discussion from Featured article candidates below. Paul August &#9742; 14:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

(Beginning of excerpt:)

Attalus I
Currently has a picture of a coin featuring his uncle. Definetely needs some depiction of him. &rarr;Raul654 00:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Dont know the copyright status of the following images, but this could be a potential candidate. So could this.  ALKIVAR &trade; 07:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The first picture given above is not an image Attalus I, but rather Priscus Attalus, don't know about the second one. Paul August &#9742; 14:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure if pictures of old 3D works of art (ie sculptures) is PD, but there's this bust . - Bryan is Bantman 02:00, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Bryan's is a great image; I would see the usage of the image applicable because the source indicates, 25 March 2005, that: "About questions such as “Could you agree to have your website being mentioned in our Newsletter or to include links to any of the web pages? My answer: Yes, if you want. I do not exchange links except if the content is related to some pages of this website and if I think that the content is appropriate and interesting. I try to exclude links to sites with content that promotes violence, or racism. This website is mainly about Hellenic culture and science with increasing emphasis of modern Hellas." I think this sense applies to Wikipedia, and I am tagging the image as PD-art (I believe this image would, if agreed that it is not subject to copyright by the creator given his statement above, belong to the public domain.)
 * However, I have found another image which, with some modest pruning, now appears in the article; the host states that the media therein "are in the public domain, and can be freely copied and used for any non-commercial purpose..." --DanielNuyu 01:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the source for this actually being an image of Attalus I rather than some other Attalus? Paul August &#9742; 14:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why is picture of tired boxer labeled Attalus? Like the Dying Gaul, this is a famous Roman statue, but does it really depict Attalus? Not very regal, and doesn't the man have the boxing "gloves" on his hands? alteripse 12:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree this image is suspect, it probably should be removed from the article, unless source information is provided. Paul August  &#9742; 14:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

(End of excerpt)


 * I've found this image used in Britannica's article on Boxing with the caption: "The Boxer, Roman bronze copy of Greek sculpture by Apollonius the Athenian, 1st century BC; in the Roman National Museum, Rome." See also: It is still possible that this picture is connected to Attalus I, in some way but for now I've removed the image from the article. I will also leave a note for DanielNuyu, on his talk page. Paul August  &#9742; 14:26, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Galations versus Gauls
(I've reconstructed the following discussion from Angr's and my talk pages. Paul August &#9742; 21:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC)'')

Hi Angr. I'm not completely content with your edit at Attalus I, I think it interrupts the flow there, and I'm not sure what information it is trying to convey. Is it trying to imply that calling the Galatians "Gauls" is a misnomer? My understanding is that the Galatians were Celtic speaking immigrant Gauls from Thrace, who were part of the great Celtic/Gualish Eastward migration. Am I wrong about this? Paul August &#9742; 19:07, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is the term "Gaul" is rather vague. Today it's usually understood to mean speakers of Gaulish, i.e. the Celts of what is now France, Switzerland, and northern Italy, but the Greeks and Romans called the Galatians Gauls too. It's clear the Galatians were Celts and that they moved from Thrace to Asia Minor during the historical period, but no one really knows how closely related they were to the Gauls of Gaul. Their language is way too sparsely attested to say whether it was particularly closely related to Gaulish. I think it's important to mention that the Galatians were called Gauls in the Attalus I article because of the reference to the Dying Gaul (always known as such even though he's apparently actually a Galatian) and because section 2 of the article is called "Defeat of the Gauls" and makes reference to "Galatian Gauls" and even simply "Gauls" in the quote. I wouldn't say calling the Galatians "Gauls" is definitely a misnomer, but it might be; we just don't know enough about the ethnolinguistic groupings among the Continental Celts to be sure. The Greeks and Romans considered them Gauls, and maybe they were right, but maybe they weren't. If you think my edit disrupts the flow, maybe you can change that sentence back to what you had, but then add a sentence in section 2 explaining that the people in question were the Galatians but that contemporary sources called them Gauls. --Angr/undefined 19:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Angr: Thanks for your cogent explanation. I now think I understand and agree with the point you are making. I think the best way to handle this might be, as you suggest, to remove the explanation of the distinction from the lead and into the section "Defeat of the Gauls" (renaming it the "Defeat of the Galatians"). I would propose replacing the first sentence there with something like this:


 * According to Pausanias "the greatest of his achievements" was the defeat of the "Gauls". Pausanias was referring to the Galatians, immigrant Celts from Thrace, who had recently settled in Galatia in central Asia Minor, and whom the Romans and Greeks called Gauls, associating them with the Celts of what is now France, Switzerland, and northern Italy.

What do you think? I think that the slight confusion that might be created by the mention of the "Dying Gaul" in the lead, doesn't really warrant an explanation there. Paul August &#9742; 19:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * That looks pretty good. It might be worth pointing out that the Greek word here translated "Gauls" is Γαλάται. --Angr/undefined 20:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Having been prompted by your mention, to look at the original Greek, I'm now wondering if the translation of "Galatas" as "Gauls" is really correct in the first place? And what does it really mean to say that the Greeks called the Galatians Gauls? Paul August &#9742; 20:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Liddell and Scott say that Γαλάται is just a later word for Κέλτοι, implying the Greeks would have called the inhabitants of Gaul Γαλάται as well. --Angr/undefined 20:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok I will go ahead and make the above changes, adding in the Greek word, as you suggested. Paul August &#9742; 21:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Protection?
I've noticed that this page has been subject to a lot of similar vandalism lately; perhaps semi-protection would be in order? Mr. Lefty 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, when I proposed this, this page was being bomarded constantly with the same offensive vandalism; check the history and you'll see where I'm coming from. It had nothing to do with the featured article status. Mr. Lefty 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
The following sentence makes it seem (or it did to me at first reading) as if the elder Attalus was the son of incestuous gay procreation:


 * The elder Attalus, was the son of a brother (also called Attalus) of Philetaerus, the founder of the Attalid dynasty, and Eumenes, the father of Eumenes I, Philetaerus' successor

I'm assuming that the following rewrite would be correct; but without a family tree I'm not certain:


 * The elder Attalus was the son of a brother (also called Attalus) of both Philetaerus, the founder of the Attalid dynasty, and Eumenes, the father of Eumenes I, Philataerus' successor. qp10qp 12:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes this is correct and better! I've made the above change. By the way a family tree is given at Attalid dynasty. Paul August &#9742; 22:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured article review
Note that this article is undergoing a Feature article review Featured article review/Attalus I/archive1. Paul August &#9742; 16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The result of the FAR was "keep". The following is a copy of the review. Paul August &#9742; 21:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:02, 7 August 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Classical warfare task force, User talk:Paul August, User talk:Sj.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues. Article seems to rely way too heavily on primary sources as opposed to secondary sources. Could use an overall copyedit pass and review for flow. Image review and cleanup/improvement of the individual image pages would also be helpful, images include: File:AtaloPergamo.jpg, File:Dying gaul.jpg, File:AttalusICorrected.jpg, and File:Attalus I coin depicting Philetairos.jpg. Cirt (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeap, it relies mainly on primary sources, although secondary sources are also used. It was one of the first FAs I read before my own ventures, and almost 3 years later I still regard it as FA quality. I am willing however to help adding secondary sources (through googlebooking only), if that is ok with Paul.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Paul August &#9742; 04:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll start working, maybe as soon as now (!); definitely during the weekend.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any suggestions for changes to the article? Paul August &#9742; 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Main concern iterated above is heavy usage of primary as opposed to secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * O! We are fast here. As I understand the main argument for delisting is citations. I'll express my opinion about copy-editing as well, but, allow me to tell you, that, if somebody argues that the prose is not satisfactory, he/she has to present some concrete examples to support his/her arguments. Otherwise ... In the meantime, I'll start adding secondary sources. As I have made clear, I still believe that this is a FA, and for the time being I am  weak keep.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On this subject, from these sources, secondary sources are more likely to summarize Livy than emend him. Most of the obvious secondary sources seem to have already been listed; I would also look at the first chapters of Magie's History of Roman Asia, for an idea of what is important enough to list in comparable space. It would be a virtuous act to check them thoroughly; but it's unlikely to change the text much. Justin (for what he is worth) should also be a primary source, IIRC. Weak keep Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Turn to full keep. Most primary sources are now backed by secondary ones; and I don't think that any event still cited by only prim sources has been ever questioned. Agree with Sept: secondary sources don't add much; they just summarize Livy without amending him. I promise I'll check Justin.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, the copyright status of the photos mentioned by Cirt looks to me fine.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist - there are paragraphs and sentences that are missing citations and cquotes where quote or no block quote at all should be used. — Ed>   (Talk  •  Contribs)>  02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely not-too-far-off-keep (?) - I changed the cquotes to quotes, and tweaked a bit of prose here and there, but this subject area is not my forte, and I feared intorducing ambiguity with too much reduction of repetition. Surely the basic biographic details in Early life are easy to source (?) Please keep this open a bit longer and I can see what I can find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some of the present tenses in the verbs should be past tense. Shouldn't there be a source for the conjectures in "Early life"? "twenty decked Rhodian warships" could be unclear to some: 20 decks or 20 ships? I think I would prefer the Magna Mater cult to appear in chronological sequence between the First Macedonian War and Macedonian hostilities of 201 BC rather than at the end. DrKiernan (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweaked to Rhodian decked, although any reader who can conclude that the Greeks built warships larger than the Titanic is probably hopelessly lost anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist (but obviously willing to change in response to edits) Neutral (for explanation see below Paul August's summary comments). The heavy reliance on primary sources itself requires commentary early in the piece. A section is needed along the following lines: "Attalus life is known primarily from Livy, while his blah blah. Scholars' analysis of Livy... (explain what the secondary sources say about Livy's historiography etc)" etc Livy wrote two hundred years after Attalus's time. This could also open a debate about the definition of a primary source, but leaving that aside, the extensive reliance on Roman/ Greek sources requires serious discussion before they are then effectively adopted as reliable. I would also recommend the text be re-styled to occasionally remind us of the basis in sources. "Livy reports that.."; "Polybius's report of the battle described..."
 * Early life is either seriously under-referenced, WP:OR, or both.
 * Is there really no archaeological research at all to contribute to a contemporary analysis of this historical figure? I find the lack of archaeological research strange.
 * Occasional clunky prose: "The spoils from Oreus had been reserved for Sulpicius, who returned there, while Attalus stayed to collect the spoils from Opus." 'Spoils' used twice, and not felicitous phrasing either. Better might be "Sulpicius returned to the spoils reserved for him from the sacking of Oreus, while Attalus stayed to claim those from Opus" (or similar). "Attalus, with his fleet at Aegina, received an embassy from Athens, to come to the city for consultations." Better might be "Attalus, with his fleet at Aegina, received an embassy from Athens inviting him to consultations in the city." There are others that could be improved.
 * Why is the section "Introduction of the cult of the Magna Mater to Rome" tacked on after the family section, which reads as though it should be the conclusion to the article, with its final lines about succession and death? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I've just got my hands (again) on the most authoritative work on the subject, Esther Hansen's The Attalids of Pergamon (1971). I'll try to review the article for accuracy, giving more granular citations, where it seems appropriate. Paul August &#9742; 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added several cites to the "Early life" section, which I think is now well sourced (if not over sourced). With this and the sourcing that Yannismarou has done, I think the article has adequate sourcing. If other editors think that more sourcing is still required, please say so, and I will try to provide it. Thanks to all for trying to improve the article. Paul August &#9742; 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I must say Hamiltonstone raises some interesting poitns above. Kudos on the early life sourcing. Is there anything in the book about archaeological evidence? I am not familiar with doing ancient hsitory articles, so I could imagine this might vary tremednously from figure to figure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hamilton raises indeed some interesting points, but I cannot agree (and I did not agree even before Paul's further citing) with his first remark. His second remark is interesting, and I also want such a section (an overall assessment of the x personality) in the articles I write, but I do not believe that such an analysis is a prerquisite for FA status; and it is not a standard for biography articles. In any case, such a section should not be necessarily based on archaelogical evidence, as Hamilton seems to imply. Prose issues should be taken care (and maybe they have already been; I did not follow the recent edit history of the article), but, as far as the last remark is concerned, I am also not sure I can agree. In terms of structure, if an important aspect in a person's biography cannot be related to the linear narration of a biography, then it can be placed at the end of the latter; and I can't see any wrong in that, unless something better can be proposed. About archaelogical evidence in particular, I'll contribute in case I find something in the net, google book etc. In any case, keep in mind that the article has already more sources than the average FAs!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not be surprised if there were a serious absence of epigraphical evidence. Pergamum was a capital for a century after Attalus, and a provincial capital for centuries thereafter; Attalus' monuments are likely to have been rebuilt. If secondary sources have nothing to add to Livy, it is likely that there is no evidence on which to base it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some responses.
 * Paul's intensive work in the last couple of days is improving this greatly, and yes, early life is now sorted.
 * I am not sure whether Yannismarou is counting my intro text as my first remark (about the need to discuss the primary sources in the article), or is referring only to the bullet points. Based on Y's reference to archaeological evidence in Y's text, I am assuming s/he has counted just the bullet points, in which case I am very surprised at these observations. Y's own essay on FAs talks about in-line cites being better every sentence than every para: the early life section had only one in-line cite when i viewed it, and that was at the end of the first sentence. Y concludes his/her remarks by saying that this has more sources than the average FA. I don't think that is relevant - this is a matter of being, per FA criteria, "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". If the literature is there, it should be covered. I'm not an expert, hence my query (rather than statement) re archaeological evidence - if it isn't there, then fair enough. Interestingly i note from the footnotes that "inscriptions are the main source of information on Attalus' war with the Galatians", suggesting that archaeological evidence (and i mean not only epigraphical) may be relevant, even important, to the subject. BTW I didn't think this article had many in-line cites by FA standards, so I mustn't be reading the ones that are 'lighter on'.
 * Finally, I would again emphasise my point about a need to discuss the sources in the article. If we are relying heavily on Livy, I would suggest an analysis of the implications of such reliance is essential. Otherwise the article may not meet the FA criteria of being comprehensive in "placing the subject in context". It doesn't have to be a huge deal, but it should be there. For examples, see some of the material in the 'background' section of Walter de Coventre (FA), the 'historical record' section of Theramenes (FA), or the 'sources' section of Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick (current FAC). hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that note on Theramenes adds much; it omits the minor details that Lysias, Thucydides and Xenophon are contemporaries and that Diodorus is an unreliable compiler of some four centuries later, who may be copying a good source on this subject. Quellenkritik should be done right, or not at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I wouldn't know my Gaius from my Julius, so I was oblivious to any issues in the Theramenes text - sounds like a reason to either improve it or bring Theramenes to FAR as well. I just wanted to give illustrations of what kind of text was needed - i'm taking it as read that Paul Agust would do it well, particularly with Septentrionalis cheering him on :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's mostly harmless. But the absence of such a paragraph is no great loss either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In case it is not clear, these are keep arguments. If Theramenes has defects, this article should not be required to imitate it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Septentrionalis commented "Quellenkritik should be done right, or not at all." This is FA: it should be done right, I would not have thought 'not at all' was an option.:-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I'm continuing to work through the article, checking sources, and adding, or increasing granularity where appropriate. I've done so through the section "Macedonian hostilities of 201 BC". I'll attempt to address other concerns above when I've completed my review. Paul August &#9742; 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope this will be kept as an FA. Tony   (talk)  13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note:Continuing to work on the article, but I will be away for the weekend, so nothing more from me till Monday. Paul August &#9742; 16:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note for closer - I think this is progressing steadily in the right direction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've completed a detailed review of the article. Some comments:


 * Acurracy: I have (I believe) checked every assertion of fact in the article, and I can write with some confidence that each is well supported by the cited references. If anyone has any concerns about any of the assertions in the article I urge them to please say so and I will attempt to address them.


 * Quality of sources: Esther Hansen's The Attalids of Pergamon (531 pages), is by far the most comprehensive work on the subject (for example her chapter on The Reign of Attalus I runs to 44 pages), and while perhaps a bit dated (1971), remains authoritative, particularly so for the purposes of an encyclopedia article (rather than say a research paper). The other secondary sources (mostly provided by Yannismarou) -- all of very high quality -- mostly serve to corroborate Hansen.


 * Reliance on primary sources: I believe that those editors who have expressed concerns about the possible over-reliance on primary sources may be misapprehending the situation. Although by glancing through the "Notes" section, one can see many citations to Livy, Polybius, etc, &mdash; except for the handful of places in the text where direct quotes have been used &mdash; there has been virtually no reliance on primary sources at all. Rather it has been Hansen's work which has been almost universally relied upon. As far as I can tell the article contains no "original research" and no interpretations of primary sources independent of the secondary sources.


 * Granularity of sourcing: There are various opinions on how granular source citing ought to be. Should each paragraph have it's own citation?, each sentence? each assertion? In my view no universal rule like this can make sense. This must be judged on a case by case basis, and only by reading and understanding what is being written and its context. You most certainly can't simply scan your eyes down an article and judge the adequacy of sourcing by the density of citations (no offense meant to anyone, and I'm not saying that anyone on this page has done that).


 * Commentary on primary sources: hamiltonstone, has suggested above that "the heavy reliance on primary sources itself requires commentary early in the piece". I'm not sure that such a thing would be a particularly useful addition to the article. The primary sources used here are the standard ones for this period and locale. Their idiosyncrasies are well understood, and have no particular significance for this article. Most of what might be said about these sources in relation to this subject would pertain to any article concerning this period and locale. Moreover as I've written above, there has in fact been little reliance on primary sources, and then only to augment and flesh out a bit the secondary sources. Whatever issues there are concerning the primary sources have presumably already been taken into account by the secondary sources.


 * Archaeological evidence: hamiltonstone has written: Is there really no archaeological research at all to contribute to a contemporary analysis of this historical figure? I find the lack of archaeological research strange. There has, of course, been significant archaeological research pertaining to Pergamon and the Attalid period. And bits of this research can be seen explicitly in the form of epigraphical evidence in three places in the article, (see notes 10, 48 and 53), although such epigraphical evidence underlies and supports other content in the article. Otherwise, as with the proposed commentary on secondary sources, there is little of particular significance to this subject and the secondary sources have presumably made appropriate use of all relevant archaeological data.


 * "Magna Mater" section: Two editors, DrKiernan and hamiltonstone, suggest above that the section on the "Magna Mater" should follow (chronologically) the section on the "First Macedonian War". I have moved the section accordingly.


 * Tense: DrKiernan has written above Perhaps some of the present tenses in the verbs should be past tense, but having reread the article, I find no use of present tense at all.


 * Paul August &#9742; 20:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Paul for your excellent work. I have no problems with the article now retaining its FA listing. I am describing my position as 'neutral' because I am undecided what to think about the lack of explicit treatment of primary sources. On the one hand, I think Paul's point, that "whatever issues there are concerning the primary sources have presumably already been taken into account by the secondary sources", is well made. That is indeed a very good reason to ensure the text is fully referenced to the secondary sources, as Paul has done here. It incidentally also takes care of my query about the archaeology. On the other hand, I don't accept the comment "The primary sources used here are the standard ones for this period and locale. Their idiosyncrasies are well understood". To those familiar with the field, maybe. To a wikipedia reader, that would certainly not be the case. Does that mean these points would need to be raised in every article that relied upon them? Perhaps, but only briefly. I was never suggesting an entire essay. However, I think the fact that the Livy article, for example, does talk about the nature of his writings, together with the citation of secondary sources throughout the current article, ensures there is not a significant problem. Probably I am thinking that if FA is the very best that WP has, then it might indeed go as far as discussing the sources. But no matter. The article is very good, and I am clearly in a minority on this. Thank you Paul and others for their efforts here. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My comments on primary sourcing may reflect an over-acute awareness that the primary sources for this article are (as classical history goes) unusually sound: Livy has no axe to grind, and is confirmed in essence by Polybius; to make a point of their flaws is undue weight. The modern historian's expectation of contemporary unbiased sources, compounded with documentary and archival evidence, is (for almost all of ancient history) starkly unrealistic; it may be sort of true for a few years in Athens and Rome, and for a narrow level of information (ruler's epithets, but not dynastic politics) in Egypt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - hahaha, reminds me of reading latin and greek texts at school :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ? Paul August &#9742; 03:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Three more comments:
 * Thanks: To everyone for working to improve the article. Special thanks to Yannismarou for his work on the article and comments above, and also to hamiltonstone and PMAnderson for their thoughtful remarks.
 * Unsastisfied conserns?: Some editors who have expressed concerns above with the article have not commented upon the subsequent changes and discussion. I would appreciate knowing if their concerns are still unsatisfied.
 * FA status: I don't understand how the FA process works, but to be clear, I have No opinion as to whether this article ought or ought not to be an FA.
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Recent edits

 * The following has been copied from User talk:Yannismarou and User talk:Paul August.

Hi Yannismarou. I don't think we want breaks in the "refs", The rest of the "refs" use ";" between multiple cites. I've been converting the breaks to ";". Also I'm assuming you will add works being cited (Austin, Lagnavec, Gruen, et al) to the reference list? It would be ideal to have the works listed there before citing them. Paul August &#9742; 21:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Breaks is just a way of citing multiple citations, which I first used in El Greco, and then evolved in Roman-Persian Wars to distinct between primary and secondary sources, but I have no intention to impose them. It is up to you! Of course, I'll add any sources I've used before going to sleep, and it is up to you to judge is these sources should stay or go. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, to me, the breaks just make the "Notes" section, unnecessarily longer. As for quality of the sources I will take a look once you tell me what they are. And as for who is to judge, that will be all of us of course ;-) By the way thanks for your good work here. Paul August &#9742; 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said in the FARC, they are sources from google booking. I have no access to printed sources, and therefore this is only what I find in the Google Book (focusing to as modern as possible secondary sources of established publishers). If you want I can add the urls in the sources.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The urls would be helpful. Paul August &#9742; 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here Mitchel has a very long and interesting analysis on Attalus' Gaul War; here is the url, in case you want to add something to the article: .--Yannismarou (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

''End of copied text. Paul August &#9742; 16:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)''

Yannismarou, more comments and a question on your recent edits: Thanks again for your good work here. Paul August &#9742; 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I've removed your addition here. Since this is too much of a direct quote of Gruen. In order to include this we would have to either paraphrase Gruen, or place quotes around Gruens phrases. However I think that speculation as to Attalus' motives is out of place there among what is otherwise a straight recital of historical events.
 * 2) You're addition here, is again too close to the original. I've reworded and moved it to a better place I think.
 * 3) Also I've reworded this edit, to be less of a (unquoted) quote and more of a paraphrase. I don't remember where I got that the "Peace of Phoenice" also ended the war with Prusias &mdash; apparently in conflict with what Gruen says &mdash; I would have guessed it came from Hansen &mdash; but your edit cited Hansen, p. 50. As I don't have Hansen readily available, can you tell me what Hansen says there?
 * I don't have a full access to Hansen (it is snipped view in GoogleBook); so I've verified page 50 for what I cited, but I don't think if Googlebook will give me access to the same page for the same piece of info! I know it sounds crazy, but it is the truth!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok! He says that since Prusias was included in the peace, his difference with Attalus must have been settled.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In "Second Macedonian War" I read that Attalus had a stroke in 197 and died the next year. In "Family" I read that he died in 197. This is inconsistent. I did some editing to streamline the story, but check it and feel free to change it or modify it.
 * This "perhaps he heard the news of Cynoskephalai before his death" does not read well to me, especially when modern writers like Kosmetatou estimate that he may have died before the battle.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there was any inconsistency in the article as to when he died. The last paragraph of "Second Macedonian War" read: "Early in 197 BC ... Attalus was taken back to Pergamon, where he died the the following fall". this means (to me) that he died in the fall of 197. As to whether he died before or after Cynoscephalae, I'd like to know what Hansen says. (Can you tell me?) I think I will try to get a copy in the next couple of days. Also note this edit, which I'm still mulling over how best to handle. Paul August &#9742; 17:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Coins
Both coin images apparently depict Philetaerus, not Attalus. It's rather confusing especially when there's wording such as "Tetradrachm of Attalus I". It seems that they don't even really belong in the article seeing as how they were merely struck during Attalus's reign. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Lt.Specht (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the images of the first coin, the Greek inscription even reads ΦΙΛΕΤΑΙΡΟΥ (philetairou), "(coin) of Philetaerus". Lt.Specht (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Coins struck during the reign of Attalus, though depicting Philetaerus, seem appropriate for this article. You now seem to agree since, though you've again deleted the previous two images, you've added a different one. Perhaps only one image is needed, and I like the side-by-side image better than the top and bottom one that was there before. But I think the previous caption was better: "Coin struck during the reign of Attalus I, depicting the head of Attalus' great uncle Philetaerus on the obverse and seated Athena, Greek goddess of war and wisdom, on the reverse". The current caption saying "Coin of Philetaerus ..." could be read as meaning that the coin was struck by Philetaerus, which I don't think is true. Paul August &#9742; 21:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would "Coin struck during the reign of Attalus I, depicting Attalus' great uncle, Philetaerus. Reverse shows Greek inscription ΦΙΛΕΤΑΙΡΟΥ, "(coin) of Philetaerus", and Athena." work? Was just trying to keep it simple before and not have a considerably long caption that would mess with the articles format and appearance. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Better. Is "(coin) of Philetaerus" your own translation or do you have a source for that? Paul August &#9742; 23:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Found the translation on Eumenes I's article. Source appears to be this Lt.Specht (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Do you want go ahead and change the caption as you've proposed? Perhaps with a cite to that source? Paul August &#9742; 01:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Lt.Specht (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)