Talk:Partition of Babylon

Untitled
Why is the rather unreliable Justin favoured over the list provided by Diodorus? Fornadan (t) 11:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Error, please correct!
It is universally-accepted that Neoptolemus had received Armenia. Also, the Tribals are nowhere mentioned. The Triballoi were also subjected to Antipater, aside from the Illyrians and Epirians. What goes for Triballia, also goes for Paionia (the Agrianes)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.201.2 (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Background
Great article. Love it. The strong feature is the table and discussion in detail of the parts of the partition. The weak feature is the general circumstances of the partition. I already expanded the introduction along the lines of explaining what this article is doing here. The background needs some expansion. The circumstances of the partition are key events in a couple of handfuls of other articles. The background is too brief to be accurate. Unfortunately I may not be able to use it in the expansion.Botteville (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The - table, the - table
Truly a wonderful table and not at all like the horror of Conrad's story. We have Curtius rather than Kurz. I agree with it generally. There are certain cryptic notations such as a system of symbols, and table notes, and a totally unexplained and unreferenced "Notes" section. Not to mention the fact that Green's book remains unspecified. These things indicate to me the table came from somewhere else. But where? Not from the article on Triparadeisos, which is at this point pretty much undeveloped. I do not know how it escaped tags. I'm searching for the mysterious table. Haven't found it yet. Furthermore, checking the Internet against key phrases, I have as yet no evidence of plagiarism. It appears to be just abandoned. I'm willing to help out the poor little waif but I may have to make a few cosmetic changes. I hope I do not have to guess what the + and the * mean. Green did not write all that many books so I should be able to find him. That is what I plan to do now.Botteville (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Table solution
I found the answer within WP. This table is what they call in Homeric studies a dis legomenon, spoken only twice. The designer got disgusted with WP and just left it. So, it isn't plagiarism as far as I can tell. A Greek WP editor saw it, liked it, and enhanced it for the Greek WP. He did a whole lot more with it, so his table is not really the same table. I like this table. I want to keep it. I don't care if it never gets used again. But, the strange symbols have to go. The Greek table has the * and it has something to do with Diadochi and Epigoni. Those terms do not apply here; only Diadochi are listed. I left a message for the formerly unhappy editor asking him to explain the symbols. If there is no reply within a few days I will dump them. The table will need to be checked and updated. Are we doing this article, or not?Botteville (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol solution
All right, I see it. One of the headings is Arrian/Dexippus. Those are two different and unrelated authors. I guess it is a device to condense space. If the recipient of the satrapy is marked with one symbol, etc. Dear me, I doubt the ordinary reader, like me, will even see it. I propose therefore to explain what we are doing in English words. I know the peripatetics among you might object, but I don't agree with the peripatetics there. The total manhours spent trying to figure out what Aristotle said is exceeded in waste only by the cold war. But, there is another problem. My source, Curtius, is not in the table at all. Oh dear. The table has enough columns. Here is what I propose. For the Partition of Babylon the column head should be ArrianA/DexippusD/CurtiusC where the letter after are in superscript.On the heading "partition of Babylon" there should be a table note, note number 1 (bump the others up). It should explain that the A, D and C stand for the three authors. Since the only two instances of the template are the partition articles, this will disrupt no one. The Greek table has found some other way.Botteville (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Green solution
Wouldn't you know it, I was unable to find those references. There have been many Greens working on the period. I suppose the editor might have meant Peter Green. I found a very nice picture of Peter at his employer's website. However Peter has written a steady stream of books since back in the 1980's. Some are on Alexander and some on after-Alexander. I could not even find a snippet tying in those page numbers in our article with any book of his. But there is an additional problem. Which author is strong for which period? We don't want to misunderstand Peter. I looked up the phrases in WP but they only occur here. The aren't on the Internet. I'm at the point of saying, "Green" and a page number are not enough. Without prompt editor intervention they have to go. There, consider it said. That leaves us with pretty much a scarcely referenced and fragmentary section. I will tend to that.Botteville (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)