Talk:Egeria (mythology)

Comments
Other references (e.g. Diana) link Diana (goddess). Should not this page be moved for consistency? Goddess also seems more appropriate than mythology owing to modern goddess-worshiping religions. Leonard G. 06:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's possible that she isn't Numa's wife: Livy only says they met at nights, and there's the distinct possibility Juvenal is simply mocking Numa. --Dd42 21:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Egeria (deity). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991011020918/http://www.romacivica.net/tarcaf/engfra/cafgen_e.htm to http://www.romacivica.net/tarcaf/engfra/cafgen_e.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991011020918/http://www.romacivica.net/tarcaf/engfra/cafgen_e.htm to http://www.romacivica.net/tarcaf/engfra/cafgen_e.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Egeria, Sally Hemings, and Thomas Jefferson
Although the sec tion is "well sourced" as User:SharabSalam points out. It is also completely beside the point. Would SharabSalam please explain why this is WP:DUE or rather relevant in any way whatsoever? I might be tempted to construe this as a petty tit-for-tat revert, but WP:AGF tells me to give SharabSalam a chance to explain. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * the connection has been made by many reliable sources and no that's not undue weight the author is notable enough to be included just like other sections which are only sourced to one or two sources. Saying that this is a tit-for-tat is assuming bad faith.-SharabSalam (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is that connection? What is the relevance to Egeria? Generic blather about sources is not a valid argument. Did you actually read the sources? Kleuske (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read the source? The source mention Egeria 22 times! also you said this was undue; no it was not--SharabSalam (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, this, "Adams considered Hemings to be Jefferson's Egeria", is your reason for including this? It might make sense to include a note on Egeria in the Jefferson article, maybe, but not the other way around. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * So apart from a simple text search, you did not actually read the source. Either that or you fail to recognize a classical literary reference (an allusion) and treat it as a reference to the mythological nymph whom Numa married. In any case, this is interesting material for the Jefferson biography, but nothing with the actual nymph. It is highly WP:UNDUE. I cannot shake the impression you are playing games. Stop wasting time. Kleuske (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

== New Information Available from the Smithsonian Magazine about John Adams Political Allusions to Egeria with reference to Thomas Jefferson that I think is Relevant Enough for Inclusion in the Main Article ==

I believe there is sufficient new information in an article from the Smithsonian Magazine in November 2016 to include a reference to it in the main article. Here is a summary write-up. I will leave it to others to decide how much of this to include in the Main Article:

45.30.87.79 (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

John Adams Political Allusions to Egeria with reference to Thomas Jefferson
Mark Silk, a professor of religion in public life at Trinity College, reported in an article in the Smithsonian Magazine in November, 2016 that while going through the papers of President John Adams, he discovered references in Adams' letters to his sons Charles and John Quincy in January, 1794 to Egeria and Thomas Jefferson leading Silk to conclude that knowledge of Jefferson's relations with his slave mistress Sally Hemings were well known to Adams well before James T. Callender's disclosure of the relationship in the Richmond Recorder in 1800. According to Silk, while scholars have combed through sources, they have identified no specific written reference to the Jefferson-Hemings liaison prior to the appearance of Callender’s scandalous report but now "Adams’ letters offer tangible evidence that at least one of the country’s leading political families was aware of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship long before the scandal broke. The documents cast new light on the question of elite awareness of the relationship, on the nature of the press in the early republic, and on Adams himself." According to Silk Adams' letters "supports Callender’s assertion that the Jefferson-Hemings relationship was “well known,” but kept under wraps. It may be time to moderate the received view that journalism in the early republic was no-holds-barred."