Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-07/vocabulary (now glossary) of ancient Roman religion

Request details
Help reach a solution about the article content.

Where is the dispute?
I started the article with the aim of providing the readers with an outline of ancient Roman religion through adetailed presentation of its main concepts. I worked on it for 2 months and wrote about 70% of what I planned.

As I am not a native English speaker nor an expert on the matter, even though I learnt Latin at school for nine years, I wrote on the discussion pages I welcomed help from other editors for the purpose of improving the quality of language. On March 28th I stopped editing.

Now I discovered that the article has been renamed glossary and its content sweeepingly curtailed, especially on the most important entries (fas, ius, sacer, sanctus, templum). Not only the content has been reduced to almost nothing but what is now stated is arbitrarily picked up: the article does not offer a critical overview misleading the reader into believing the concept can be defined with certainty (in a wrong way).

Moreover disproportionately threatening templates have been put on my original contributions, claiming the content is hard to understand and confusing. I think the article was not unintelligible although the langauge could have been improved. In fact everything I wrote comes from specialists's works which I quoted regularly.

This section should explain where the problem is. Link to the articles where the dispute is taking place. Glossary of ancient Roman religion

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * Haploidavey
 * Cynwolf

What is the dispute?
A calm explanation of what the problem is. Be as precise as you wish, but avoid general statements such as "User:X has a POV regarding article Y", as that's usually unhelpful. Provide diffs if possible, but try to keep the description brief. A list of issues that need to be addressed, such as this, would also help.

What would you like to change about this?
I am ready to accept changes to the article I wrote as far as readers would be able to have some grasp of the semantic and religious issues involved in the meaning of terms and wrong or partial definitions are eliminated.

Here, tell us what you would like to changed. Does the conversation need better structure? Are folks having difficulty communicating? Are they talking past each other? Stuff like that.

My goals for Glossary of ancient Roman religion were/are as follows:
 * The Glossary should offer clear, succinct entries on terms pertaining to the study of Roman religion.
 * A term explained more fully in another article should be dealt with minimally, in two or three sentences, and linked to the main treatment.
 * Longer entries of one or two paragraphs are appropriate for terms that might be used in other articles where a fuller explanation would be a digression.
 * Terms requiring a longer treatment, particularly lengthy "he said, she said" scholarly disputes, should be spun off into their own articles.
 * The Glossary should rely primarily on English-language scholarship, supplemented with scholarship in other languages that is considered standard or irreplaceable. I adamantly support the use of foreign-language scholarship, but WP policy is to use it in addition to, not instead of, Anglophone sources, unless these do not exist. In this case, English sources exist in abundance online.
 * Regarding Aldrasto's contributions in particular: any user whose language competence is such that he can write an English encyclopedia article obviously has the skills to read and use Anglophone scholarship, since formal composition in a language is a more advanced skill than reading cognition. Aldrasto should take the time to familiarize himself with the English scholarship available in full or in preview online. Doing so should have the added benefit of helping him communicate his ideas more clearly in English prose. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?
Difficult to say, these people admit they have not researched the subject but some of them speak quite conceitedly. (this comment added by Aldrasto --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Assistance that focussed on what has led to the misunderstandings and how to overcome them - finding areas of common agreement - would I think be a great help. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute.

Mediator notes
It looks to me like this is a case that is likely to be resolved by policy and/or convention. For example, Wikipedia does not have outline pages, we generally have glossary pages for topics this braod. Also, the majority of the content that was deleted and or edited seemed to have a valid purpose, unless I am mistaken. According to one of the involved parties (Cynwolf) seems to believe that some of the deleted content could be made into independent articles. The policy here dictates that the page be properly wikified, which it did not seem to originally be. It would seem that this entire argument is a massive miscommunication, and I belive that this article will need ongoing meidation.

Reccomendation
After hearing statements, I believe that there is no ill-will between any of the parties. In reagrds to the article itself, I cite policy, and reccomend that Italian sources be used as supplements to English sources, unless no English equivilancies can be found. I also strongly reccomend that some of the larger entries be made into independent articles, with links, and short summaries on the original page (perhaps this page could be a start to several new pages, which would be wonderful). I also encourage Aldtrasto 11 to attempt to clarify his English, as some of his original writings are rather confusing (remember who Wikipeida is for) I also encougrage the other editors to work with him on this page, I see substantial growth potential here. Remember, don't bite the newcomers! If there is any further need for mediation, do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page.

Opening Statements
Do not place text here unless you are, or wish to be a part yto this mediation.


 * When I was introduced to the article, it was called "Vocabulary of ancient Roman religion." A long, well-developed article called Religion in ancient Rome had long existed; therefore I'm surprised to see Aldrasto state on this page that he originally intended to write an article on Roman religion. Maybe that's why the article had initially been nominated for deletion. It was rescued by others on the talk page who understood it as a lexicographical article that ought to be structured accordingly — that is, organized by subheads alphabetically. Several suggestions had been made, and help offered, by at least three other editors before I participated. I commented that I thought such a vocabulary was a potentially valuable addition, but that I found the material as presented extremely hard to follow.


 * This is a subject area in which I frequently contribute articles (as listed here), and I felt that if I found it hard to understand, it would certainly be incomprehensible to the casual user. The mediator is correct, I think, that the original editor was unfamiliar with formatting. This is easily corrected. The material was also full of spelling errors, typos, and grammatical errors; the versions preserved now (collapsed) on the talk page have been cleaned up already to some extent by various editors. Some of the subjects treated at length were already covered in or closely related to the two existing major articles on Roman religion, the main article noted above and Imperial cult (ancient Rome). Multiple editors tried to show Aldrasto how to improve the article. My suggestion was to slow down and do a better job with basic copyediting and formatting before posting enormous amounts of barely digested material that others would need to clean up. I've been editing for about two years here, and I can honestly say I've never encountered messier composition or more incomprehensible writing.


 * No one has ever said that Aldrasto's sources aren't valid. The sources are of good quality; however, because they were in Italian, it was difficult to help rewrite the material to clarify it. WP policy is that English sources should be used when available, with sources in other languages as supplements, or used when they are the sole valid sources. Abundant English sources exist, many available in full or in preview online. Aldrasto has frequently been told to find English sources that corroborate or supplement his Italian sources. He has been encouraged to continue editing. It's evident that he has a passion for the subject matter; however, what matters is the usefulness of what ends up on the page. At least three experienced editors have trouble understanding what he's trying to say.


 * The conflict arose when Aldrasto left the page for two or three weeks without editing. When I noticed that, I remarked on the talk page that it simply couldn't be left in that state (again, numerous spelling and grammatical errors and faulty formatting, in addition to the "huh" factor). I also said that many of the sections were of article length, which was not appropriate for a "vocabulary," and should probably be spun off into their own articles. I had no way of knowing at that time whether or not Aldrasto would ever return to the article. I began looking around for similar articles to use as models for cleaning this one up. I found that in fact there was a preexisting category called "Glossaries of religion." I therefore renamed the article to Glossary of ancient Roman religion, instead of "vocabulary," in keeping with others in the category. I got ideas from these on how to organize the material. Haploidavey, the driving force behind the two major articles on Roman religion mentioned above, began pruning. Although it's true we've chopped out a great deal of material, the entries are still much longer than those of other glossaries of religion, and we preserved it on the talk page in case Aldrasto returned and wanted to develop it. I'm not sure how long we worked on the Glossary before Aldrasto did return; maybe a couple of weeks.


 * I'm frankly not sure why this is in mediation. I've repeatedly said that if in editing we've misunderstood the material, Aldrasto should make corrections. I don't see any evidence that he's attempted to do this. As far as I know, no one has reverted any edit made by Aldrasto. When he's pointed out erroneous or misleading points, I've tried to correct them. Given the Glossary's length, the entries can't be any longer, but I've also suggested that he take his lengthier entries and make independent articles of them, which would give him an opportunity to explore a given topic while allowing the glossary entry to be properly concise. If the issue here is that I shouldn't be working on the article, or have done damage in some way, then I'm happy to go away. I was only trying to sort out what I saw as a highly useful article that I thought had been abandoned. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sincerely sorry if somebody here feels offended. I repat once again I welcome everybody to contribute to the article I started. I acknowledge everybody mentioned here (and perhaps otherts) have tried honestly to improve the article to the best of their ability.

My objections concern the way in which the article has been changed in its scope and content. The issues I tried to research and present are highly specialistic and sometimes disputed, however their relevance and interest to the topic of Roman religion, culture and law is obviousy conspicous.

I did not intend to start and write a new article on Roman religion: before starting editing I asked user Haploidavey whether I could treat the subject under the article Ancient Roman Religion (now renamed Religion in Ancient Rome) or start a new article and he encouraged me to start this article.

As I tried to explain above and on user's Rank 01 talk page I felt it was useful for wiki.en to have an article that deals with the issues of terminology in Roman religion, as they were presented inadequately, unspecifically, summariously, in a way sometimes confusing and/or simply missing: eg sacer, sanctus, templum, religio, omen etc.

I wrote about this to user DES when he took part in the deletion question months ago. It is my view that it is useless to talk of any topic if you do not have a sufficient knowledge of the meaning of its vocabulary: it all becomes airy talk.

I shall list here below some questions:

1) The main sources I used are available on line. If somebody edits the article he should accordingly remove the original citations where appropriate and if necessary give new ones. Everyday when I read I make new discoveries and many statements are unreferenced: eg verba concepta has been wholly rewritten and I discovered that these were revealed or inspired by gods. I did not know this and I did not find any reference given. Obviously this statement is of great relevance and consequence to the topic. Was Roman religion a revealed religion such as the Etruscan? Can we say Numa was really inspired by Egeria and conversed with Jupiter? Who supports this view?

2) Editing the article may mean make alterations, additions, cuts or even rewriting everything from scratch. For many entries the last is what has happened here. Now how can I edit an article that is completely different from that which I had originally contributed? I would have to change perspective, but I shall endavour to make what I can, if I can.

3) Part of the topic (unfortunately the most important terms, ie sacer, sanctus, fas, religio) is complex and much debated among scholars as the sources are lacking or fragmentary or even Roman scholars were not unanimous. Probably this is also due to the fact that the sacred books were secret and then they were destroyed by the end of IV century. We can only compare what we have from different sources, Roman scholars included. Given this fact it is very difficult to avoid either longwindedness or arbitrary presentations. However there is perhaps a limit or balance which one can try and strike. I appreciate that the people mentioned here and others have tried  to give a hand with their advice and I sincerely thank them. However would it be possible to discuss the issues in the talk page or here in advance instead of making unilateral decisions on changes? The instances are too many but what has happened to sacer sanctus fas nefas is such a sweeping change that leaves me at a loss on how to fix it. It is a double task and frankly I do not know how to deal with it.

4) Originally the article meant to present the original specific aspects of religious culture of ancient/archaic Rome and Italy. It is already an enormously challanging task. I acknowledge many of these terms are nowadays in use in Christianity, especially Roman Catholocism. However it would require another equally great effort to try and discuss how these terms were borrowed and their present meaning is potentially a cause of confusion. I would prefer not to discuss the issue in this article. If somebody is interested he might develop a new article on the subject. It is a another topic and per se a big one.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Elen of the Roads Hands firmly in air, I tagged this for an A10 speedy when I new page patrolled it, as Aldrasto had listed a load of topics that appeared to already have articles, and the original lede sounded like this was some kind of research project. After a discussion with DES and another poke thru the article it became clear that the author wasn't copying text, and hadn't intended to create any duplicates. At the same time, there were a lot of problems, but I think nearly all of it stems from the fact that Aldrasto's English isn't as good as he thinks it is.

My Italian is virtually nil, so this is certainly not a competence criticism. Good faith but poor English can always be worked with, but Aldrasto has objected to other editors removing sections that honestly cannot be resolved into readable prose, because in his opinion the English is good enough. Layout and wikifying have also been the subject of a great deal of discussion, for example, at one point I added a raft of templates which were later removed to make it match the Glossary format, but the main problem really is that what Aldrasto writes has to be drastically rewritten because it is long, dense, and in very hard to follow English. He objects to the rewrites because they remove material (most of it is now on the talk page to preserve it), and they don't say what he intended them to say, but he is reluctant to go back and rewrite again.

Aldrasto uses sources in Italian, and Cynewolf has been rewriting based on sources that she(??) has access to which are in English. Not knowing enough about the scholarship, I don't know whether the sources actually contradict each other, or whether the sole problem is the language barrier. Aldrasto also has some difficulty in using the mediawiki software - he often can't find diffs for previous versions of content, and various other aspects seem to give him grief. This led him at one point to believe that all his contributions were lost, which hasn't helped.

All of this has led to a somewhat prickly editing atmosphere - Aldrasto feels got at, Cynewolfe feels like she's having to defend perfectly legitimate actions etc. An informal mediation that could stabilise the approach to the article would possibly be helpful, an Italian speaker might also be helpful. It's a shame it's ended up like this, because no-one is acting in bad faith, pushing any POV etc. It's just a massive communication breakdown.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Haploidavey I see this mediation is due to close soon, so I'll just add that I support Cynwolfe's proposals. I find Elen's judgments accurate. I do sympathise with Aldrasto, but in hope of illuminating something-or-other, I'll paste in a copy of my most recent reply to him on the Glossary talk-page:


 * ...From where I stand, any disagreements on sources and their interpretations are secondary to the need for consensus on what this article/Glossary/Vocabulary should aspire to. I'd say "clarity and utility". You say above: "I acknowledge the topic is complex and needs a long discussion to enable readers to have some grasp of it." How long a discussion did you have in mind? And to what end? Seriously, the Glossary (or Vocabulary, if you wish) already has close on 120 entries and is still nowhere near even notional completeness.


 * Your original entries are potentially useful, but they're more notebooks than articles - interesting? yes, of course. What I'm trying to say here (I think) is that at some point, one's notes and raw material must somehow be transformed into articles; the more complex the material, the greater the demands for clarity of expression and organisation. This is emphatically not an accusation. I've notebooks filled with this and that on various topics in Roman history; they make perfect sense to me but they're little use to anyone not already thoroughly immersed in the material, no matter how interested they might be. One can know a topic inside out and make perfect inward, subjective and self-evident sense of one's own notes - that doesn't make them articles, and (unfortunately) their essentials can remain impenetrable to others. I think we seriously underestimated the enormous editing task here - I know I did - but then, I edit because I enjoy it. At the end of the day, we're all part of a community of editors. I'd rather leave the community to decide where all this should be going. My own opinion's already clear enough. Haploidavey (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe any of these problems are insurmountable. Sorry to offer no more than a cut&paste, but I write slowly, and the foregoing pretty much sums up my position. Haploidavey (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)