Talk:Rhodogune of Parthia

Uninteligoble
I started to wikify this but who was related to whom (and how) escaped me. Avalon 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikification
I have wikified the article as best i can, but lack of referenced information hampered things somewhat. The article appears to be a makeshift conglomerate assembled by consecutive authors of various levels of academic rigor.

I am removing the "Wikify" tag, as it is now in a layout as close to wikipedia standards as the level of information (or lack thereof) can allow.

I have been unable to find a tag asking for the addition of further information to the article. If one such tag is known by somebody reading this, could you kindly attach it?

Merci

Exemplar sententia 12:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added the 'expand' tag, which is probably the most appropriate that I know of. I agree with Avalon in that I found this article difficult to understand; I'm pleased with the work that has been done to it.  Good job!  *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 12:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding alternate points of view
I would like to have my edit of Rhodogune kept. Right now, it shows the story of Rhodogune going off to fight rebels as factual without a countering point of view. Currently our only certified source is Polyaenus who wrote his work hundreds of years after the event and has very few details. Other scholarship has shown that questions have been raised about some of these female stratagems. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that we put the question forward on how true this story (and some of his others) are. Dlv426 (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Please show where the cited source says this; "However, it is possible that this story is legendary because the earliest source for this story is Polyaenus who wrote centuries after the event took place and he does not cite contemporary sources for this event." It's more or less the same as diff where you added your own personal opinion  HistoryofIran (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be resistant to reviewing the rules to which the community has agreed to. I recommend you read them:
 * Reliable sources - these are required for any statement you make in an article, especially if you are challenged.
 * No original research - you are prohibited from adding your own opinions, personal commentary, or personal interpretations of sources. The prohibition also extends to synthesizing a conclusion from multiple sources that isn't stated in any of those sources.
 * Undue weight - even if you find a reliable source that provides an alternative point of view, it may not be appropriate to include, especially if it's a fringe view or something published by someone not known for having knowledge in the field. A Nobel prizewinner in Chemistry may be a reliable source for the discipline in which the prize was won, but that doesn't mean we would publish that person's views about politics in Africa, for example.
 * Reading those should make it clear to you why you are being reverted. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Anachronist, I have a well thought out argument and you do not engage with it all. It is extremely inappropriate to put just revert people’s sentences without reviewing why they are doing it in the first place. It’s rude. I’m not doing anything bad by adding my sentences in. Please tell me what specifically about my sentences were problematic. Dlv426 (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not saying the cited source says those exact words. I gave my quote from the source I cited in the next sentence that brings doubt into the Rhodogune story which is my objective with the sentence you quoted. That sentence you quoted was based on the fact that we don’t have any contemporary accounts of the Rhodogune story and Polyaenus who is our source for the story written centuries after the fact. It is known he lived in the second century during the time of emperor Marcus Aurelius while Rhodogune lived in the second century BC. Moreover, Polyaenus does not cite his sources from earlier centuries which would make his story more credible. You can look up an online copy of his work translated here: https://www.attalus.org/info/polyaenus.html. In this online translation, the blurb at the beginning even says some of these could have been used for entertainment purposes and not for practical value.
 * In the source I used, author Kai Broderson explains why the female strategems section might be problematic. Specifically Polyaenus seems to be interrelating the stories. Do you deny any of the facts I’m presenting? If you don’t, is this not worth a sentence or two of doubt so the reader doesn’t automatically think the Rhodogune story is 100 percent accurate. That’s all I’m advocating for. Is this really such a big ask?
 * If you feel my wording could be different let me know. What I’m trying to get across here is that we don’t know how accurate some of these stories are because ancient sources tend to exaggerate stories even during the time they are written let alone centuries after the fact. This is a well known thing among ancient historians because they had patrons who were funding them and weren’t always trying to be 100 percent accurate. They usually wanted to introduce moral lessons, push points of view, gossip etc. My goal with my sentences was to introduce a little doubt for the reader. That’s all. I’m happy to get your take Historyofiran. I like constructive dialogue. Dlv426 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anachronist, whom you just reverted, essentialy violating WP:3RR. This is the last time I am asking you to revert yourself and reach WP:CONSENSUS. If a source doesnt directly say what you added, then please dont add it. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * History, you didn’t engage with my argument. What would you like for me to say because I tried to be as specific as possible with my current add on. Would you just like me to quote the source I have? Don’t say anything else except the quote? What precisely would you like? I laid out my argument clearly on why it seems coherent to say what I said. You didn’t address my argument of polyaenus writing centuries later, his lack of sources etc. can you please tell me what problem you have with my argument and say how you’d like me to word it please. Thanks. Dlv426 (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you didn’t answer me earlier. Anachronist reverted my add-on without consensus as well. It works both ways. Dlv426 (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed it to be as close to the source I stated as possible. Do you have an issue with that? I would greatly appreciate why the facts of Polyaenus writing centuries after the fact and the fact that he doesn’t cite where he got the story from is not enough to call into question the legitimacy of the story in your opinion. Dlv426 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it does not work both ways. Judging by your response and question, you did not read the rules you were advised to read, further proving Anachronists point. Thanks for removing your personal addition though. But you replaced it with something else ("However, there are some questions about this story from Polyaenus and how it relates to his other female Strategen stories.") where does the source say this? I read it, and you've interpreted it incorrectly, conveniently making it sound like your previous personal addition. Please remove it and discuss it through here, or I will take this to WP:AN/3 immediately. Sorry, but when you're not listening to two veteran users abut the rules, that is the best solution I can come up with. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * History, the next sentence explains the quotation you quoted from me. In the source it says, questions remain on how the story relates to the other strategems specifically based on their interrelationship with 5 of the same woman. Please tell me how you read that?
 * additionally, you did not engage with my original argument. Do you dispute that Polyaenus wrote centuries after the event, and does not cite his sources? Is this not worth a mention? Does this alone not bring some doubt to the story? I would like to hear your response. Dlv426 (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically I am asking how you interpret the quote. Dlv426 (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)