User talk:Cynwolfe/Archive 9

Request


Hi Cynwolfe. I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but I think you're being rather unfair in suggesting that neutrality concerns represent "the imposition of our political views or emotional responses". I thought I'd made it clear in the RfC that sources have taken issue with the term 'FGM', arguing that it is, for example, 'judgemental and "tantamount to an accusation of evil intent", non-neutral, and political.' It's not often that we're so fortunate in having sources judge NPOV-related issues for us &mdash; usually we have to do so ourselves. But since they have in this case, would you consider altering your comment? Jakew (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jakew, there may be editors who are arguing on the basis of sources, but a lot of them are not. They're arguing that "mutilation" should be used because the practice is horrific and abhorrent; I agree with this view of the practice personally (and I don't edit articles on contemporary topics that I have such strong feelings about), but that is not the argument to make. I appreciate what you're saying about the sources themselves arguing that the word "mutilation" is charged, but this can be dealt with in the body of the article if it's determined that (based on the sources) "mutilation" is more common and clearer than "cutting."
 * That said, I"ve seen cases on Wikipedia where the weight of scholarship is plainly wrong, and a more careful minority of scholars are demonstrably in the right. I don't know what to do about that; it's an interesting problem of WP methodology. But we don't call the article on rape "non-consensual sex" or "forced sex" just to be nice to rapists; we call it "rape" because that's the most common and clearest word for what we're trying to describe. I see that UShick, who always has interesting views, has proposed "female circumcision," which is perhaps neutral, but which forces an analogy with the more common male circumcision that can only roil the waters further (since there are in fact instances when adult males undergo circumcision for functional or medical reasons—when undertaken for the rare medical reason, however, the removal of the clitoris is called clitoridectomy). I have in passing written of a similar practice in antiquity (and will be presenting this in slightly more detail in Sexuality in ancient Rome under "Female sexuality"), where the term "clitoridectomy" is used. That's what all the sources I've seen on the ancient practice call it, and therefore that is what I called it in this section of the article "Women in Ancient Rome". More accurately, however, this surgery seems to have been clitoral reduction, and given the anatomical vagaries of the ancients may have involved the labia, akin to vaginal cosmetic surgery, a practice that to my mind belongs in the category of "barbaric medical practices" that will shock people in the future as much as removing ribs to fit into a corset or footbinding shocks us now. I suppose the article on FGM could be called "non-consensual clitoridectomy" or "ritual clitoridectomy" if neutrality is the first aim, but I doubt the sources will support either.
 * Although I may find reason to expand on my comment at the RfC or refine or alter my reasoning, I don't see any need to strike anything, because I don't see any factual errors or incivility. I can't think of anything that would persuade me that this shouldn't be based on the principles of "most common" and "undue," as indicated by RS. I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this scorchingly emotive topic in a civilized manner, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Cyn. You make some good points.  I think we all agree that the practice is horrific and abhorrent, but as you rightly say, we shouldn't allow that to dictate how we present the topic.  To my mind, the problem with using loaded terminology is that it is effectively the same as asserting an opinion: there's little difference between referring to the subject as "FGM" and asserting that it mutilates.  Maybe we all agree that it does mutilate; certainly a lot of sources agree, but a lot of sources also tell us that those in the practising communities don't consider it as mutilation.  So while it's a majority Western viewpoint I'm not sure that we can call it an uncontested opinion to the extent that we can assert it as factual.  And so it makes me really uncomfortable to do that.  I don't think there's enough of a difference in clarity between "FGM" and "FGC" (or, indeed, "FGM" and "FGM/C") to justify that loss of neutrality.
 * In any case, we clearly have very different interpretations of NPOV, and that's probably no bad thing. I always learn a lot from this sort of discussion, and I think it's healthy to reexamine one's understanding of WP principles from time to time.  It's too early to be sure, but consensus today seems to favour FGM, and if that's the outcome then I can at least say I tried. [[Image:Smile.png]] Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Murasaki Shikibu
Hi Cynwolfe - nice to run into you again! Stupidly I barged into the Murasaki Shikibu without bothering to read the talk page - which after six weeks or more of working on the article, I've finally looked at and found the discussion re novel. I've tried to be very careful in that regard, but let me know if you think I've strayed. In my view much of the definition should go the Genji page, and the Murasaki page be more of an overview. I've found that historians tend to define her work as a novel whereas literary scholars hesitate to use to the term or will qualify it heavily, so I've decided to lean more on the literary critics than the historians with the logic that as a piece of literature they should be given greater consideration. Hope you agree. Truthkeeper (Talk) 02:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I hadn't taken the page off my watchlist, but as soon as I saw your name recurring I knew it was in good hands so I stopped checking it. I agree that the genre and "first" discussion mainly belongs at the article on the novel (and as I noted the treatment there was already more nuanced), not the biography. I'm a complete ignoramus about Japanese literature, but Murasaki Shikibu had come up at the Women's History project and when I went to the article I was concerned about the emphatic claim for her as writing the first novel "by centuries," I think it said originally. Given postmodernist novels, I'm fine with calling her work a novel; it's the claim of "first" that seems to me unsupportable (well, and denying Apuleius a "psychological" element, though that only has to do with the talk page). One of the other participants and I had recently been in a discussion where we objected to the statement "Athens invented theatre" for a number of reasons, so it was a little irritating to be perceived as arguing the point only out of some kind of obstinate Eurocentricism or a classics snobbery. The long prose works of antiquity aren't that well known, but they are indeed called "novels", as the substantial bibliography on them indicates; to my frustration this point wasn't self-evident.


 * Anyway, to me it's quite interesting that long prose fictions have been assuming forms that are more like ancient and medieval narratives, sprawling and digressive, rather than the classic 18th-19th century novel. So that's why I fixated on the talk page a while. In short, I do agree: her achievement should be summed up in a way that does her justice, not reduced to a sports stat that can easily be disputed. Do you feel any obligation to say in the intro that Genji is sometimes considered one of the earliest novels, or the first Japanese novel, or something like that, with an explanatory footnote???? I don't know; since the "first novelist" claim is out there, does it need to be addressed head-on and nuanced? (I think it's funny you've been editing without reading the talk page; sometimes it's better that way. The one who is pure of heart catches the unicorn.) Cynwolfe (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd just finished copyediting List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Japanese books), which is about early Japanese literature and it made me think of Murasaki. I dove right in without ever looking at the talk page, and there hasn't been any activity there since I started editing. Last night was the first time I looked - I think maybe I shut down a debate. I wouldn't put in the lead anything about Genji being considered a novel - the literary scholars are too cautious, and the focus is a biography on her page. I think's it's fine to link to the Genji page and tackle the issue there. When I'm finished will probably clean up the Genji page and do something to that extent there, but heavily qualified. Also, I have addressed the issue, with attributions and direct quotations in the "Genji" section, which should be enough. I hadn't realized it's part of Wikiproject Women's History, but again that shows how blinded I am when I'm in article building mode. Anyway, I intend to bring this to FAC fairly soon, once I'm satisfied its completely polished, so will post to the Wikiproject at that time. Hopefully it will become an FA for the project. Btw - I do like Apuleius. I've always though Cupid and Psyche would be a fun page to expand. I like working on pages where I can add good illustrations. One more thing, re Wikiproject Women's History - next up for me will be Isabella de Medici, hopefully in collaboration with Ceoil. If she's not already, should she be added to the project? Oh, and thanks for the image. Truthkeeper (Talk) 17:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Mithraic Mysteries – New SPI
Hello Cynwolfe. I've opened a new sock puppet investigation in relation to recent activity re the Mithraic Mysteries page. See Sockpuppet_investigations/Roger_Pearse Thought I should let you know. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. It does seem a strong indication when the one IP edited the user page. I haven't been watching the article, and since I don't have a sense of what's been going on, I wouldn't have anything to contribute to the SPI discussion. I never quite got over my profound disappointment at the personal prejudices unmasked in the earlier incident, and prefer to avert my eyes, I think. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sacra
Got your message, thanks for the thought. I have no idea where this comes from, I found an inaccuracy, however it is not so bad. Hope you will comment on Jupiter once finished.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I read it again and compared it with Religion in Ancient Rome. The last article in fact does not deal with the topic expressly and systematically. As it is it should be linked to other articles on the subject or could be deleted putting a redirect to the glossary, which does have a voice sacra. Some information could be integrated there too. Correctly speaking the gentilicia, paganica etc. are not publica, the publica r only the state s.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
For being there. Haploidavey (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And for the wonderful link! That's some wake-up call - and doesn't he write well? - all tinder and flint, hard edged, penetrating lyricism. I just read it aloud to the collective (that's me and the Aged P), and am now settled down for a leisurely re-reading. And cripes, what's this - another Ahl!


 * On Liber - thank you for the praise (and the fix of my blatant grammatical duh!). Odd, really, that the article's the effortless result of much blood, carnage and tortured research elsewhere. Now there's a lesson for me... Haploidavey (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And for us all. Glad you liked the Ovid-Rushdie article. Yes, the Liber seemed effortless, as the culmination of past effort. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Jupiter
Sorry to disturb you with a triviality: I find the painting by Ingres (or David?) horrible... In my view the best painting capturing the essence of the relationship between Jupiter and the world is Giorgione's La tempesta. Do WP rules allow its use here?Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll check into it. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the hrlpfulness. Replied to you and Davey on my talk page.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your great contribution. Most of the links are out of my reach but I managed to read something of Setti's book. I shall try and search also the other books in other ways... I think you are right, there is certainly sufficient material for justifying the use of the painting in the artickle, with a caption stating that quite a few scholarly critics interprets the lightning as representing Jupiter. It looks there has been a number of interpreters who saw Mars and Venus or Mercury in the couple etc... Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Cyn, that was a truly impressive piece of directed research. 21:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Haploidavey (talk)

When you have a minute, could you please help me with the Giorgione image? I uploaded it yesterday but somebody removed it as I do not know how to write in the caption. Where exactly should one write? I wish to write something like : "Some scholars interpret/think/believe Giorgione's The tempest to represent Jupiter as the bearer and fosterer of the world". You may change the wording as you think appropriate. Thank you a lot. Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks: I knew it was already uploaded but not how to write the caption. The article is now finished.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Iudaea_capta_reverse_of_Vespasian_sestertius.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Iudaea_capta_reverse_of_Vespasian_sestertius.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Iguvine Tablets
I am reading the tables on the on line work by Newman. I found the Trebulan Gate. I wondered whether the epithet Trebus Iovius is related to the name of the gate (the gate leading to Trebulae) but the other two gates do not seem to have given names to the two lesser divine entities Fisus Sancius and Tefer Iovius.

Tefer is Tiber but not the river: what does it mean? I mean etymologically. Newman interprets it as piece (tomaculum) of sacrificial meat, i. e. as a common word not a proper name,  from the start (he starts with  T. III). If you have time could you please look up for me the OLD for interpretation of the other same root words ? I think of e. g. tibia, tiburium etc. The name of the river could derive from an ancient religious practise or just mean that it cuts the centre of Italy. Of course the ancient etymologies just move the question one step back: saying it comes from a person's name never mind Latin or Etruscan leaves the issue unanswered and unchanged. Thank you very much.

On Trebula: Metuesca seems the correct spelling, but the WK article spells Metusca, so it should be changed.Aldrasto11 (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Holland
Yes sorry about the quotation marks, genuine mistake there. By style he means tactics, I merely thought it best not to repeat the word. And I do think it helpful because it provides a citation on an otherwise uncited claim. Now, I shall go and paraphase it to avoid deletion.

Lucius Winslow (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Crisis of faith?
What's this, flippancy?. My, my... Haploidavey (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "or not" is exasperation at finding a reference that says this is outside the theory of trifunctionality. Go figure. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wife-selling
I wouldn't be surprised. That's what tends to happen around an occupying army with lots of money. Tacitus would snort about the Romans corrupting the noble savages.

One source, I think, would be Ammianus Marcellinus on Fritigern and the Visigoths when they came into Roman territory two or three years before Adrianople. That wasn't free contract, of course, but it shows what the Romans expected as nrmal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Jean-Baptiste Roman
Hi Cynwolfe, I just thought I'd let you know that I saw your article Jean-Baptiste Roman in the New Articles list-- You did an excellent job with including references and citations.However, I noticed there are some holes that may need filling: some of the article's Wikilinks are broken. It would be great if you could also add references to the related article José Charlet.

I'm kind of new here myself but let me know if there is any way I can help. Thanks, Amy Z (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, er, yes, I am not new here and the stub tag was intended as a cheerful acknowledgement of the effort's insufficiency. I was mildly surprised that the artist's works illustrated three Wikipedia articles, two as the top image, with a significant representation of the subject in the third, and yet he lacked an article. I was also mildly surprised that I found so little about him, though as I recall I used English search parameters so probably missed out on some French resources. I suspect that an artist database might be needed, or an actual trip to a library, which I'm not motivated to do for this fellow. Don't know what you mean by broken links; there's only one external link, to the Louvre Atlas Database, and while I notice that it isn't the link I'd intended (should be the main search results, not an individual work, and I'll correct that), it seems to be working just fine. All the internal links seem to lead to the correct articles; do you perhaps refer to the red link to his colleague Françoise Rude, who (as the red link indicates), lacks an article? I have no immediate intention of developing Monsieur Roman's little biography, nor writing one for Monsieur Rude, and encourage you to do so. And if I may ask, why on earth am I supposed to add references to José Charlet, an article I don't recall ever visiting? He seems to belong to the 20th century, where I rarely spend my Wikipedia time. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * His colleage is François Rude, being -er- masculine. Wet noodle, two strokes; the other being for saying Roman was alive in 1862.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch, thank you, master. What sloppiness. Have no idea where I copied (literally) that date from. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you deleted the example of his work? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch myself. Probably not; looks like I was editing an old version. 1862 is from the Process-verbal, and I agree it is misleading; but it must mean Petitot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, sheer haste and sloppiness on my part, and trying to edit while distracted by certain kinds of WP noise. I shall lie awake worrying about my deteriorating faculties now. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

White ground technique
Thanks for alerting me. I am very happy with those edits, it looks much better that way, and the gallery is a good idea. If you are interested in that type of thing, please have a look at the various Greek vase painting articles I have added over the last few days. athinaios | Talk 13:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I watch a few articles in this area, but not comprehensively. I'm happy to take a look at such a pleasant topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all the work you are doing on the recently added entries! athinaios | Talk 21:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's truly my pleasure, and I hope I can do more, particularly toward removing the "unreviewed" tags. I stand in awe of the massive amount of new content you've generated on vase painting. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of reliable sources
Is not on. Not all sources have to be scholarly, though that is preferred. If you see a problem, WP:SOFIXIT or move on. In this case, at List of common misconceptions, this means finding a better source yourself. Given your interest in Rome, I believe you are capable of sourcing the claim either way, and I see that you have proposed sources at Talk, but I must say, just add them to the article. There's just no point discussing adding RS. I've suggested alternate text. Please do contribute. Finally, please date your cn template additions with "|date="; the bot is not 100% reliable. --Lexein (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Cynwolfe (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have since determined what this was about. Your deleted remark accused me of disruption and having an agenda for requesting a citation (for the assertion that vomiting during meals was a Roman custom!). I then pointed out that a textbook called Discovering Nutrition was perhaps not the most authoritative source on ancient Roman dining, and was accused of being "snobby". Ironic, that a page supposedly devoted to debunking misconceptions provoked a zealous defense of perpetuating one. Less drama and more good faith, please: if I had been a new or inexperienced editor seeking to correct a mistake, your behavior would've been quite offputting. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's your talk page, but please do not misrepresent the simple facts. My deletion of my unneeded comment was a retraction. I do not care about the nutrition cite. I did not, in any way defend it, beyond the point that deleting a citation (which, though not the best, is sufficient, and can easily be replaced) is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. There's nothing ironic about any of this. The source doesn't say "all Romans", so your harangue is pointless. Continued banging on about a trivial ref improvement is absolutely not constructive and, as I said on article talk, WP:LAME, so please feel free to stop at any time. --Lexein (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I corrected the error. Anyone who wishes can examine the sequence of events, and can judge whether your behavior is promoting "a pleasant editing environment". As I said, I was trying to discuss what the better sources said in order to seek consensus; the alternative was to arrogantly delete what I assumed to be your good-faith contribution and provoke an edit war. Since it looks as if I've made about twice as many contributions as you, I'm amused that while engaging in pointless bullying you suggested that I "help out" with the work of building an encyclopedia. But thanks for stopping by, Your Lordship. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Badger
Sorry if I seemed a bit badger-like back there. Those were earnest questions: while I think all these pieces can be argued for according to policy, I'm concerned about their use without a proper apparatus for understanding here. I can make sense of some of the more jargon- and equation-heavy chemistry articles after clicking through a bit, but in the humanities I worry about the more academic pages being uninterpretable white noise that aren't propped up by accessible and, more importantly, accurate overview pages. There's also the concern that the familiarity the humanities has in tone will lead to a snowballing of misinformation. There's actually an inaccuracy on that page which I'll correct once I have access to a couple volumes, but I unfortunately don't have the time or energy to work on this topic, which I work on everyday offline, and generally just have to shrug my shoulders and return to the poetry written on this rubbish.
 * Hey, Cardiffchestnut, no worries. I'm not even entirely sure what you mean. (Remember to sign talk-page posts with ~ .) Cynwolfe (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Harmlessness and unintelligibility--two of my best features! ;) The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Galeria Copiola
--v/r - TP 01:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 08:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a delightful article! Haploidavey (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I used to run into tiny ancient or at least retired ballerinas on the way to my daughter's ballet classes. She still likes to recall one instructing her on how to balance a teacup on her instep, and will assume the position at the drop of a hat. (I'm still nibbling around the edges of that article on Ancient Roman mime. Don't want to post our Parasites till the mime article is up, as they don't make a lot of sense without that context.) Cynwolfe (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I recall your post-performance encounter, those muscular sylphs all sweating like racehorses. For some reason, the retirees seem even more formidable. Haploidavey (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And lovely and gracious as well as indomitable. And so you see how someone like Galeria, through her own abilities, gains a sense of self that lets her stand as honored guest (despite the infamia!) before those nobiles and their ancestral images and family name stretching back to Romulus. (Yep, quite strange to see the moment of transformation from onstage flower to flesh-and-blood, blisters and tears. Much missed it when Daughter decided to quit. I believe I mentioned a cherished memory of leading a pack of eight- and nine-year-old "Mother Ginger's Children" backstage through the streets of Paris, the recent set for La Bohème.) Cynwolfe (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)



It'll come... Haploidavey (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Much needed. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That Greenblatt book you linked: have you read it? D'you think it offers a good introduction to Lucretius? For a general readership? Haploidavey (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Galeria Copiola
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:EAR mentions you
Hello Cynwolfe. Please see EAR, where Aldrasto11 has complained that you and Haploidavey are acting as a team to revert his edits. My guess is that a broader discussion might result in the same advice that Aldrasto11 has already received. With specialized articles it's not always easy to get participants for a broader discussion. If you have any ideas for what to do next, it would be helpful if you would leave a comment in the EAR thread. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ERA
You made a good suggestion for clarifying the last point of WP:ERA back in September. I think we ought to go ahead and do it. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 12:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, looks like we are of the same mind! :) (EDIT: I hadn't seen your message here or on the MOS talk page before deciding Cynwolfe's suggestion merited addition) — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 12:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a mild preference for one era convention, but am not prepared to shed blood over it to force someone else to use it. I try to observe the existing convention in an article, and internal consistency is most important. But I once expanded a tiny single-source stub into a multi-section article with a substantial bibliography, and changed the original era convention in the course of it—without thinking about it, because that's what most of my sources used. A group of closely related articles all used the era convention I had (which is why it seemed natural to me), and since they were likely to have the same readers, I thought there was also some marginal utility in being consistent within the broader topic era. Not that I would argue for that in general, but it seemed strange to have one anomalous article. And yet I've had to battle over that one many times. At one time, you could avoid endless debate by saying "the earliest use of an era convention in the article was X," and that's how it's supposed to stay unless there's a substantial reason to change. That seemed overly arbitrary, and you had to lawyer that substantial, especially since it wasn't modified by "specific to the article." I guess that's why it was done away with, but now I'm not sure what you're supposed to do when era warriors swoop in. So it will be interesting to see whether FoxCE's change stands. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Mnester
My pleasure, Cynwolfe! Thanks for your message! I was actually quite surprised there wasn't an article on him already, so I wanted to fill that lacuna. Best regards and happy holidays! --Polylerus (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hyacinth
Dear Cynwolfe,

I have noticed that you have previously undone some of my changes to the Hyacinth page. Since I'm a quite passionate Hyacinth scholar, I would like to engage you on this subject:

1) I suggest that my new introductory paragraph is more suitable (and catchy!) for Wikipedia's (non-academic) general audience and accurately addresses the crux of the Hyacinth myth: a) Who the mythological character was; and b) the myth's cultural relevance to society.

2) The Bosio statue adds a new medium to the paintings; also, I suggest that more images (within reason) can only add value to the page.

I trust that you will consider the above in a positive light!

Tharadan (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * According to this diff,, you deleted material that was sourced to Walter Burkert. You added this, which had no citation and which expresses a POV. I don't know any classical scholars who use the locution "man-boy love," not even those who have been accused (fairly or not) of using their scholarship to further a pederastic agenda. Articles should not have too many images in proportion to the text, and they need to follow standard layout guidelines, such as not sandwiching text between left-right images. I'll copy this exchange to the article's talk page, where others can participate. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality in ancient Rome
Hi, this addition seems off topic to me. Speculations about the modern "morality" of a figurative artistic work or an unsupportable view expressed in this book that the artist might be prosecuted, are unlikely to be supported by relevant case law (one would have to explain under which country's legislation this would even be possible, which would take this further off topic). If you don't want to revert, I will raise it for discussion on the article talk page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you may revert it if you like: it is been emphasized to me repeatedly that the Warren Cup will be offensive to some readers, including homosexual men who would prefer not to be associated with pedophilia or pederasty. In other situations where ancient morality conflicts with modern morality (I'm not aware of any modern societies where pedophilia is considered in a positive moral light, though ages of consent may vary), it has seemed worthwhile to point out differences, so the article doesn't seem to be merely promulgating a pedophilic or pederastic agenda. This can be a difficult balance to maintain in writing about ancient sexuality. See, for instance, the quote at the beginning of Pederasty in ancient Greece from Robin Osborne. I'm not sure why you would put "morality" in quotation marks: cultures do have moral codes. The ancient Romans had sexual morals, although these may differ from our own. The Warren Cup raises many troubling questions; not sure what purpose it serves to pretend these don't exist. But if you think the quotation lacks value, please revert it. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbitrary or cherry picked comparison with irrelevant definitions of paedophilia is highly unhelpful for this article. There is a danger of giving inappropriate and off topic weight to poorly supported editorials and moralizing. The reason I put "morality" in quotations is that there is no context either for it being highly anachronistic to describe the artwork in any such way and ignores the issue of how youth was interpreted in the ancient world or any comprehension of how households worked in the ancient world, including the position of slaves. I will revert and raise the point on the article talk page as you suggest. --Fæ (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're mistaken on one point: ancient societies, including Greece and Rome, typically had rites of passage: it was considered wrong to have sex with a child who had not reached a certain age and attained sexual maturity. It is a point of scholarship on the Warren Cup that the boy on what Pollini thinks of as the "Roman" side does not seem to have reached the age of majority within Roman culture. See Sexuality in ancient Rome and Lex Scantinia. Now, it's true that the protection of freeborn children against sexual predators did not extend to slave-children; slaves lacked legal and social personhood. A male slave was never considered a vir, a "real" man, and was always called a "boy" (puer), which in sexual terms could designate a role as well as an age group. But if the Romans thought it was hunky-dorey to have sex with children, they wouldn't have seen a need to protect their own children under the age of 14 from sexual activity. Consequently, there are indeed RS that characterize as pedophilic the use of children (by the Romans' own definition) as sexual "pets". But I have no objection to deleting that particular sentence. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)