Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 February 16

= February 16 =

A Latin challenge
I'm tweaking the article Attacotti in an attempt to bring it up to WP standards, but am worried that I might be doing more harm than good. What it needs is someone less philologically challenged than myself, in regards to "controversial" Latin transcriptions, etc. Note however, that this might not be a simple task, and would require reviewing the sources (cited) and possibly recombobulating my efforts. Of particular need is the section Attacotti. ~ Any attention would be appreciated, even just a suggestion on the talk page; thanks, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For an article, I would say that we can't really do much here; ideally, of course, we shouldn't be translating primary sources, or really even using primary sources as references at all. Is there any secondary literature that discusses the Jerome passage (for example)? That discusses why it might be controversial and maybe offers different translations? I agree that the Jerome passage seems strange, but on the other hand, maybe it's just a literary device to make the Attacotti seem even more foreign. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (Sorry, now that I look more closely, I see you're not doing any "original research" here...) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attention on this matter; the discussion continues on the article's talk page.  ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)