Talk:Oikos

Xenophon's Oeconomicus
Just a note to include this work in this article... Pjmc 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ✅ 2A04:B2C2:405:EB00:49ED:7FEB:55D6:B003 (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguate?
Would a disambiguation of the ancient Greek social concept and the modern social concept better server both? PoptartKing 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the Medieval Greek oikos? It was a distinct social entity in Byzantium, yet it recieves no mention here. The article would be better titled 'Oikos' (ancient Greece) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.18.234 (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Any sources available, for the fact of the Med Gr oikos being a rather different thing? Then we could make that point in the text - and so identify the existing material as specific to the Classical / Attic oikos.  That opens the way to new sections as necessary on other senses / applications of the term, and the article can grow and extend its coverage.  Maybe one day a split will seem right.  Until then, changing the title as suggested here would shut off growth.) 2A04:B2C2:405:EB00:DC10:58B5:7F59:9747 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Oikos as Hellenistic technical term
I'm not sure where you plan to go with expanding this article, but the word oikos was a technical astrological term (beginning circa 2nd century BCE). An 'oikos' was the sign of the zodiac in which a planet was in its own home (e.g., Venus in Taurus). This placement gave the planet some sort of prominence in the chart, and it was used in a variety of astrological techniques. In Mithraism the oikos or hupsoma of a planet may have been used in symbolism borrowing from the popular astrological doctrine.

Should I add this information or is it far afield?

There is also the popular Stoic philosophy term 'oikeosis', but I suppose this as well as the patristic 'oikonomia' belong in separate articles.

Zeusnoos 17:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oikos
Is Oikos capitalized? Sometimes in the article it is, and sometimes it isn't. | A ndonic O  Talk 10:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ✅ 2A04:B2C2:405:EB00:49ED:7FEB:55D6:B003 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

kyrios
The link, kyrios, in the section about men, redirects to Yahweh. I removed the link code. Clinton  (talk)  01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?

 * In Ancient Greek literature, the nature of the oikos was prevalent, and indeed, the cornerstone of this ancient society. However, in the 5th century B.C., ancient Greek writers orientated the nature of the oikos with the polis (the city state); the conflict between these two was addressed in Greek Tragic theatre. The conflicting interests with both the oikos and polis'' lead to the structural decay of the society.

I have removed this as an effort to summarize something the editor did not understand. Prevalent is wrong; orientated at best jargon; and the conflict between the demands of the family and the city was long since as settled as in any society. The Antigone is (historical) fiction; and what had the decay of Greek society (if any) to do with the oikos (which survived)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This doesn't read like a soundly reliable source, to me, but it clearly outlines a story our article should be telling about balance of oikos and polis (perhaps complementarity rather than "conflict"). (It also identifies the Greek Tragedies the above deleted passage is referring to.)  Can anyone find recent reliable sources on this?  (That passage cites (Pomeroy, 1998), p.233; anyone have a copy? perhaps of a more-recent edition?  Does it say enough?)
 * There might also be deeper roots to all this, as an issue still with faint cultural echoes in the Classical period? The return of Odysseus, as long-absent king, to find his / his wife's oikos full of "suitors", seems to me a clear hint of matrilineal monarchy still resonating in Homeric times.  The "suitors" were presumably competing to woo the queen (rather than contenders warring against each other): evidently all assumed tht marriage to the queen was the essence of legitimate kingship.
 * I really can't be the first with any of these ideas! Reliable sources, anyone? (supporting or refuting?!)
 * ____
 * Note: Matrilineal = new queen is queen's daughter (new king is new queen's husband); as opposed to patrilineal, where new king is king's son (new queen is new king's wife), which is what we're used to.
 * The recent UK succession, queen to king, was unusual, a 'distorted' but still patrilineal succession. Elizabeth II was queen because her father the king had no sons, resulting in king-to-queen succession (the English having lost their taste for civil wars) but it was still patrilineal: succession by the monarch's son / earlier king's grandson.  The recent accession of Charles III has restored male monarchy, still in the patrilineal sequence.'' 2A04:B2C2:405:EB00:49ED:7FEB:55D6:B003 (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

English floor plan?
Having a diagram for a "typical floorplan" is great, except that the current one has Polish definitions. "sypialnie" is bedroom. Um, yeah... Shenme (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ more Roman (Pompeian) than Greek! 2A04:B2C2:405:EB00:392B:812A:8CB:1B2B (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

References .. !!
I've reworked the references (though without changing the referencing system). That probably needs explaining (+ it has thrown up some ideas tht may be worth sharing).

The source page(s) cited now display in-line - in the running text of the article - (bracketted), immediately after the clickable citation boxes - etc. That's because now displays each source jst once, even if the source is cited several times. These source details used to be repeated for every citation; the section is now much clearer, much more informative, to scan through. And the page-references display in-context, within the article text - which is, really, where you need them.

The article's referencing is kind-of reorganised; but only on the surface. The underlying reference system is unchanged. This isn't the sort of system change where guidelines say get consensus first. I hope it's OK tht I didn't go that road? - I wanted to get on with fixing the problems I was seeing rather than starting a discussion instead.

I've also not changed the citation details - which sources are cited, where in the article, and what pages in the source. Only the way the details are put together has changed (except tht I did expand, + sometimes correct, some of the source-specifications themselves; + I've tagged a couple of seriously under-supported sections).

I also avoided making any content changes along the way. Looking at some sources did prompt some such thoughts, but I kept them to myself. With all this done, the article still said exactly what it said before I started. This avoids any later content discussion getting enmeshed with organisation / layout issues.

That matters, because layout - of the wikitext - has changed a lot. I broke out the source-specifications, so separate parameters appear on separate lines. (I found I had to, when assembling the merged lists of page details for multiply-cited sources.) That means comparisons - {diffs} etc - with older versions (= before this reorganisation) will be basically unreadable. I regret that; but it quickly became clear to me tht I had no real alternative. (See rant following. Unless you prefer to skip it?!  See also below, Ideas! (b), for a possible fix to this {diff} problem .. + why I didn't fix it).

Wikipedia increasingly attaches importance to references, and reliable sources; yet its working methods rely on referencing which breaks up the wikitext by intruding source-specifications in the form of frozen blocks of inscrutable alphabet soup - totally intractable to edit accurately. (As a former IT professional I'd feel irresponsible if I tried.) These source-specifications wouldn't be tolerated as assembler code - they're worse, more opaque, than knitting patterns, and those are intended as compact references for interpretation by skilled hobbyists, not as code to be executed by machine. I'm sure this crazy way of doing things means that contributors simply don't maintain source specifications, don't keep them up to date. It's an absurd way of proceding.

Notes:

A Why + How


 * was swamped in repetitive source-specs. It was impossible to judge how many different sources supported the article, or the role of each source (= whether cited extensively or at jst the odd page, + at how many places in the article).


 * Some of the source-specs had sketchy bibliographic detail (especially in ). I amplified / corrected iffy source-specs.


 * It's possible, as far as I know, tht an alternative referencing system ({sfn}s etc?) might fix some / all of the problems. But I'd have had to read up such alternatives; + anyway a change of system would have required prior consensus.  As mentioned above, I wanted to get stuck in.


 * The answer to the Reference section's repetition problem was to 'condense' the references, where a single source was cited more than once, linking all the citations to a single source-specification.


 * (As outlined above,) that meant page-details needed to display in the articles's running text, and this also seemed best even where a source is cited only once. The {rp} ("reference page") template is intended for this.


 * In-line page detail clutters the display and can be hard to read. For legibility I find AMA style (= round brackets) is probably clearer for most readers - so, eg, .  Here, in-line, I abbreviated page-ranges where possible, to cut clutter: thus,  not.


 * With page-detail displaying in-line, it's not strictly necessary to include the page detail in the source-spec. Maybe it's also not desirable?? (duplicating it means risk of clashes - due to typos etc.) - but I judged it best to include it.  It makes the References section more informative: the reader can gage from the list of pages roughly how much of the source is relied on in the article.


 * The Reference section included one note of a different kind. I left it there, among the references - rather than creating a single-item Notes section (inc reminding myself how to do that!)


 * I used {anchor}s to implement links for Carey quoting Xenophon, + for the inclusion of a References source in Further reading.

B Page-lists


 * I was surprised how much attention was needed, with the multiply-cited sources, to get consistent clear page-lists in the source-specs.


 * Pages are listed in page-number order - not in the order of the citations mentioning them. So, pages= 12, 345 not pages= 345, 12 even if the article starts by citing p.345 and only mentions p.12 later.


 * In source-specs, screen clutter is less of an issue and clarity trumps brevity. (The brevity relied on in-line can occasionally be unclear, as where eg pp.2-300 ("two-to-three hundred")) risks misapprehension as "200-300".)  So (unlike in-line), page-ranges in source-specs are not abbreviated: pages= 123-128 not pages= 123-8.


 * Pages cited separately are listed separately - pages= 123, 124, 125 not pages= 123-125.


 * Where a page cited separately falls in a range cited elsewhere, it goes unmentioned in the page list - so pages= 123-125 not pages= 123-125, 125.


 * Where page-ranges overlap I've merged them - so pages= 123-135, not pages= 123-130, 128-135.

C Ideas!

a/ It would be great if <>ref could take a pages parameter (or had a variant, <>refpp or similar) with {rp}'s functionality built in. If it could interface with {reflist} (or {cite}), that would clear any risk of {rp} & page= data clashing. Even if not it would reduce wikitext clutter. (All those little page-list rules, B above, could be automated too!) Fair bit of software work required (+ consensus-building), I'd think! (I'd have no idea where to start.)

b/ How about moving all the source-specs right out of the section text, and putting them instead at the start of the References section? jst before {reflist}? - so they display as a kind-of summary reflist: a row of citation click-boxes running across the screen. That would give the reader quick access via the tooltip, to wander back & forth, no scrolling required, to review and compare. Apart from all that, it's also an instant fix for my rant above - declutters the wikitext excellently! And doing it here would have avoided the problem about unreadable {diffs}. See below for how it would have looked - no software work required! But it's a distinctive change to the article's overall appearance and I wasn't BOLD enough (or rather wasn't DAFT enough to do that without clear prior consensus!) See next, (c), for how software work could make this summary optional.


 * I've reverted all this - it deosn't make any sense - and restored the conventional and longstanding reference format. it made no sense having page numbers in duplicated in both the citation in the list of references and in the inline text. It's not only non-standard/idiosyncratic but clutters the article text unnecessarily. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)