Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 12

Italics permissible in titles of articles on books?
See the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles. Wareh (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Roman total iron output
You are invited to take part in a discussion on a scholarly estimate of total Roman iron production here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Constantine Doukas
Is this hybrid and novel form, drawn from the much-disputed wisdom of the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, desirable? As far as I can tell, professional Byzantinists use it only when coerced by their publishers; see Talk:Constantine Doukas. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Roman mythology quality rating
Do other members of this project agree that Roman mythology merits a B on the project's quality scale? To me it seems utterly clueless about the categories of "myth" and "religion." The section "Foreign gods," for instance, doesn't say anything about narratives (until a non-sequitur in the last sentence); it's about the importing of cults, which is a matter of Religion in ancient Rome, not Roman mythology. The section "Early Roman mythology" talks about the indigetes and novensiles, two groups of deities that don't figure in any narratives, as far as I know. Rituals and festivals also receive attention here — again, this is material that belongs to Religion in ancient Rome. Ovid's Fasti, one of the main sources of Roman myth, is mentioned in a single phrase (no Vertumnus from the Metamorphoses either), Propertius's Fourth Book not at all. Although "legends" of early Rome are mentioned, where are they in the article? Romulus and Remus are mentioned only as tangential to the Aeneas story. There's no discussion of any treatment of Roman myth in the visual arts (no wall painting!), and the article is illustrated by a single image (a statue of Jupiter Tonans that's more cultic than mythological). Moreover, the article is very poorly sourced, and not very well organized. Would it be OK with other members if I changed the rating to C? I obviously have a strong opinion, and don't want to act on that without a consensus based on at least three or four other editors who are committed enough to the project to watch this page. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I knows of exceptionally well-written articles rated C-class simply because they lack a picture. If we're going to rate articles at all - I'm not at all convinced that we should, but that's another story - I think Roman Mythology merits a C at best. Haploidavey (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've hastily and impatiently rewritten the intro, without improving the article as a whole. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice Claudius
nominated Claudius for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Classical Greece and Rome articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Classical Greece and Rome articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A topic in Roman religion needs …
you, Experienced Editor. The page in question is Novensiles, an admittedly low-importance article. See Talk:Novensiles for some potentially high-quality material contributed by an editor who IMHO could use some guidance on how to incorporate his work into the existing article structure and how to wikify it and rewrite it for an encyclopedia aimed at the non-specialist reader. The editor has about a year's worth of experience editing WP. I've been so far from effective in explaining myself that it's quite possible I'm wrong or pigheaded. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

contributions of a banned editor
Some people here might be interested in Talk:Symposium. McZeus (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Aorist
A discussion on Aorist has taken place on whether the article should remain essentially as-is, or should be rewritten the replace Greek-related grammatical terms like "aorist" by other terms. Input would be greatly appreciated at Talk:Aorist. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think highly of either version; but Radagast at least seems to know Greek. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my impression as well, but the page could use some input from others with a good command of Greek. I see that Akhilleus has made an effort there (no Wareh?), but the length and heat of the discussion is discouraging. I left the talk page without fully seeing what the problems are, and with a suspicion that the battle was shaping up against Radagast as "nah nah nah classicists don't own these terms." It was rather my view that an article called "aorist" ought to answer the questions most likely to be brought to it by Anglophone users looking up the word "aorist." If there's a distinction to be made between the term "aorist" as it's been used in the modern era in the teaching of ancient Greek, and "aorist" as a specialized term used by linguists, then explain it. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I started trying to write something on that talk page this weekend but despaired for reasons much like Cynwolfe's. At the time, I thought that, whatever the differences on how to describe the Greek aorist, the article (however wretched) would continue to take that as its main subject.  But it seems increasingly apparent that some editors really are determined to treat the Greek aorist, despite its uniqueness and notability on its own, as merely an instance of some other category.  And there is no such category that will not prove an unsatisfactory stahlhartes Gehäuse & kill the life and prospects for fine-grained nuance of the Greek subject.  So, I encourage others here who simply have a view whether Wikipedia should have an article on the Greek aorist, to chime in at Talk:Aorist.  Some of you can do so more ably than I.  Wareh (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, there you are! I think you posted after I'd looked at the page and fled. I'm still unclear about what's causing the commotion there. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue seems to be that a couple of editors have decided


 * That the only proper meaning of tense is a purely temporal marker - thus ruling out most tenses in most IE languages.
 * That the aorist is not a set of forms, but an aspect - despite the demonstrable usage in Greek and Sanskrit.
 * That their meanings are the only ones linguists recognize, which seems fairly dubious.
 * That, therefore, an article on the aorist must be about this so-called perfective aspect, and if there is a division, it must oust the IE aorist.
 * I welcome Cynwolfe, who will, I think, recognize this phenomenon. It appears to be done with more literacy than the last two times; but if she wants to sit this one out, she is welcome to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There has now been a partial agreement to split.
 * Erutonon created Aorist (Ancient Greek) for the Greek aorist.
 * I moved the article on the "aorist which is an aspect but not a tense" to aorist (linguistics). There is now a move request to move it back to Aorist. Comments welcome.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This has now devolved to the point where one of our unhelpful colleagues has declared that we shouldn't use "conjugation" either. Suggestions? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This last request is based on a misreading of my comment. No such declaration has been made.  The comment was made concerning the word "screeve" used in Kartvelian linguistics.  --Taivo (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Those who have been discouraged from participating at Aorist, aka Aorist (linguistics), may be more interested in helping to cultivate Aorist (ancient Greek). I feel strongly that the latter article ought to be a place where a student or seminarian learning Greek can find a clear but accurate explanation expressed in the kind of terminology customarily used in language-learning situations and minimally burdened by jargon. My feeling is that grad students or professional linguists or classicists don't use Wikipedia as a reference. I could be wrong. So the more input the better. Talk:Aorist (Ancient Greek) is at the moment a clean and well-lighted place. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Julius Caesar
There are some significant edits being made to Julius Caesar, with which I agree in principle, as they seem directed at making the article more readable. Still, since this is a major article (one of WP's thousand most visited), it might be good to have a greater consensus behind this move, and I thought project members would want notice. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Glossary, again
Could editors offer comment on the content debates at Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion? Haploidavey (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Greek mythology
Category:Greek mythology understanding and criticism … well, don't know what to say other than: it exists. I'm impressed by the optimism of "understanding." I see what the creator's getting at, but wondered what anyone else thought of it, or whether there might be a better wording. I'm also stymied (to use my favorite word from Nancy Drew) by the inclusion of "Ancient Greek atheists" as a subcategory. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Pompeii Discussion re 3D Models
Could interested parties please have a look at the Pompeii discussion page under "3D Models of Pompeii" and make comment. Pmolsen (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cincius
I just royally screwed up some links and such to Cincius, having conflated two writers by that name in my haste. Will fix this later today, as my dog is insisting that I walk him this very minute. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, think I've sorted this out, to the extent that these two can be, maybe. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Greek
FYI, Greek has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Greek love - delete and disambiguate?
Discussion here for those interested. Thanks.McZeus (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This appears to be going downhill; the article has now been tagged with only marginally justified tags, which are an admitted part of an AfD campaign. (The article has already survived AfD once, and the changes since then are small - and by me in general improvements.)


 * More attention would be helpful.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You are engaging in inappropriate canvassing. Please stop. I would be very happy for others to monitor or join in the current debate. McZeus (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Aesop
An IP is removing a lot of sourced text from Aesop. I don't have enough knowledge to know if he's right. Would someone mind having a look? P. S. Burton (talk)  23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a pity that the IP doesn't use a named account and didn't explain anything on the talk page, but that's life. Clearly it was right in the "biography" section to remove citations to aesopsfables.org.uk, which is a nice site but (to put it at its highest) no more reliable than Wikipedia. A very rapid glance suggests to me that the overall result of this work is an improvement. And rew D alby  09:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the diff of the anon's net effect. Looking at it, the only thing that seems really questionable is the removal of Nagy, but that's a second source for a well-known story. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

dating conventions
I've been kindly informed that it is permissible for me to ask the project's opinion as to whether the era-convention (BC vs. BCE) for the article Gaius Valerius Flaccus (consul) should differ from the convention of using "BC" in the List of Roman consuls, and for disambiguating consuls of the same name by year, and for the rest of the Valerii Flacci, and based on the bulk of the scholarship used to create the article, as I am unclear as to why the long-term proconsul of much of Spain and the Narbonese who had to dance between the Marians and the Sullans should be exceptionally dated "BCE." I believe I have betrayed an opinion here. Please block me now, before I do further irreparable harm to the great name of Wikipedia. Frontem tabernae sopionibus scribam! Cynwolfe (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When it was created, BCE was used, and according to WP:ERA that's what it should remain. We don't require consistency between articles. Some of our Ancient Egypt articles are BC, others BCE. Starting to require consistency would overturn the current compromise, as it could then be argued all articles should be BC/AD. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ERA says: Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors. I completely replaced the content of the stubbish article that was the original, using "BC" in accord with my sources. The editorial consensus is implicit in the use of BC at List of Roman consuls and in the naming of articles on consuls who are disambiguated by means of consular year — this was discussed on the project page (see epic discussion here, where BCE was not even in play); I believe all of these disambiguated consul articles now use BC, unless some slipped through the cracks, and presumably the body text accords, so whether or not the era appears in the article title, there's 'substantial reason' for using a consistent system among the consuls, in part to make the consul box consistent throughout their articles. The other articles on Valerii Flacci also use the BC convention. Is that not collectively "substantial"? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for the provision in WP:ERA was to discourage the drive-by changing of dates, usually by editors who do nothing else and are playing factional politics. Changing the era as part of a thorough rewrite, in order to assure consistency between articles, is entirely reasonable, and an example of what is meant by "substantial reason". We could also settle this by using AUC, citing Varro, Obsequens, Niebuhr, and Mommsen, ;-> but on the whole I think that no service to the reader.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is how far does this go. What happens if someone then says that another set of articles covered by this Wikiproject should be brought into line? If we can draw the line here, and there was a discussion, I'm happy. If it then gets extended to another group of articles, I won't be happy at all. I've experienced this elsewhere, where someone was changing AE articles 'to make them consistent', but in that case there had never been any discussion. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article in its present form had used the BC convention for almost two years before someone decided to change it. No reason for changing it was given, other than the stub had used it. More than a year and a half ago, I completely replaced the content, using BC (actually BC had been used as early as 2007). It's been that way since, except for another time when someone drove by and changed it to BCE, and then again it was changed back to BC. For a while, "BCE" was used in the article title, because I didn't know about doing a move when I was new at this. Then it was decided, against my wishes, that the date be removed from the article title completely (there are several Lucii Flacci who were consuls, and only one Gaius; still, I thought the year was useful, because praenomina are easily overlooked or confused, there were at least three Valerii Flacci running around at the time, and the date helped orient the reader); if the date were there, surely it should not be the only article on a consul to use BCE. The application of a guideline shouldn't result in an anomaly — especially since this guideline says there are exceptions, given good enough reason. There's no precedent being set here, other than allowing an edit to be made without weighing whether it makes sense for the kind of subject matter dealt with; notice (but visible only in edit mode) that ALL the articles to which this one links use the BC convention. Also, it belongs to the category "1st-century BC Romans," not "1st-century BCE Romans." Since the guideline permits exceptions, I don't see why my reasons for using BC in this article are outweighed by nothing other than "somebody created the article by copying word-for-word an entry from an 1870 dictionary, but decided to use BCE to sound hip." Cynwolfe (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Once you start taking about making the era style consistent between pages you are fundamentally overturning the current compromise and is a compromise that I consider it to be a big mistake to touch. To argue that a substantial rewrite justifies a change would not contradict  current policy and, if everyone is happy with that principle, I would be happy to  subscribe to it.Dejvid (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there seems plenty discussion here and Cynwolfe's first sentence (in the post immediately above Dejvid's) seems reason enough to use BC in the article. If we're going by era-policy, that seems enough. What if it had been BCE, though? I can entirely see the point in discouraging era drive-by warriors but as per PMA (and QED) above, that has nothing to do with this. Wikipedia era-policy keeps shtum on consistency within categories, as far as I can see. Perhaps it shouldn't. I've no strong feelings on the matter, and no argument to offer for or against. (Additional comment: on the other hand, and off the cuff, Cynwolfe's argument for seems pretty convincing). But I feel very strongly that we should respect and value the era-preferences of those who do the work; in this case, the expansion of a rather stubbish affair into a well-written, fully cited and wikified article. Anything else seems, on a human level, frankly absurd. Haploidavey (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cynwolfe. Consistency in a set of related articles is a factor worth considering in deciding the format of the title.  It shouldn't necessarily determine the outcome of every case, and I certainly understand that "drive-by editors" are a concern.  But in this case we have an established editor revising the whole article and working to improve the entire field, not just slavishly altering titles to suit her preference.  I think such changes are reasonably warranted and ought to be allowed.  P Aculeius (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to make a decision that a particular category should be consistent by era then the fair way to do it is to propose a discussion to decide how all the pages should be irrespective of what the current majority of those pages currently conform to. However, I think it would be mistake to do so because when the issue is so controversial, making a decision that covers a large number of articles always pisses of a large number of people who did not participate in the discussion because they heard of it after the event.  Just look at the controversy over the delinking of dates.Dejvid (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what was proposed. The question was whether it was appropriate to rename a specific article that was conspicuously inconsistent with all of the related articles with which it was grouped (and also inconsistent with the text of the article).  The reason for the policy against renaming articles in this way does not seem to apply to this case, because this isn't an arbitrary decision by an otherwise disinterested party, but a logical decision by one of the article's main contributors.  In fact the case for not renaming it is especially weak, because the author is merely restoring the original title, which was apparently changed from "BC" to "BCE" in precisely the arbitrary manner that the policy was written to discourage.  Applied to these facts, it seems clear that the article title ought to use "BC".  Since a broad new policy would indeed be controversial, I think it would be better to make these decisions on a case-by-case basis.  As long as editors use common sense, most changes won't cause conflict.  P Aculeius (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The elephant in the room is that for historical reasons pretty much all categories currently have a majority that are BC. Hence virtually all BCE articles are inconsistent and no BC articles are inconsistent.  If argue that a major rewrite taking a stub up to a full article justifies an era change that would equally allow a change from BC to BCE if the person doing the change did an similar amount of work as Cynwolfe has.  That principle would not give preference to either era and hence is in line with the current policy.  When you make the first justification  that the article  "was conspicuously inconsistent with all of the related articles" you are outlawing any change from BC to BCE while at the same time declaring open season against the minority of BCE articles.  Surely that is incompatible with the current policy?Dejvid (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what Cynwolfe is arguing; but her argument is below. On the general point, if BC is the most common style, we should not be changing to BCE anyway; we are not here to reform the English language, least of all in advance of its readers. If, in some particular subfield, BCE is more common in current reliable sources (and there are some where this is the case), that might well be "a substantial reason" for discussion and consensus to redo the whole cat. But, again,  that's not what we[re discussing here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy is that era-convention can be changed for a 'substantial reason.' I've said what I have to say on this, for believe it or not, how we date his era is perhaps the least interesting thing we could discuss about dear Flaccus. The bottom line is (and what I did or didn't do to the article is beside the point) there's no good positive reason to insist on using BCE in this article. The only reason I've seen stated is that one should lockstep "obey" a guideline (not even a policy) that explicitly states there can be good reason to make the change anyway. If we ask the question "how does using BCE benefit the readers of the encyclopedia?" I can come up with no answer. Using the same era convention used in the scholarship and in the most intimately related articles seems to me to be a positive reason and of some slight cognitive help to the reader. WP rules are a matter of evolved consensus and are always subject to discussion and reevaluation anyway. Surely we all have better things to do than haggle over this, though as always I appreciate the eloquence and care with which P Aculeius expresses himself. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Briefly: I think this is a can of worms possibly best left unopened. The current policy is, "People disagree, so let's follow the arbitrary practice of keeping it whichever way it was first." The "substantial reason" clause doesn't seem to have led to frequent departures from this. "Norm of the subfield's scholarship" could be a very slippery new criterion, since in fact scholarly practice is divided: many could and would argue that the right and best classical scholars all use BCE, etc. The practice at Wikipedia is tilted towards BC/AD. So necessarily, in my view, the more people are encouraged and empowered to believe that "substantial reasons" are to be discussed, the more this BC/AD tilt will come under fire. We could have war instead of compromise, and probably more CE/BCE in the encyclopedia (which I'll admit I personally don't like for two reasons: a tendency to stick to traditional usages, and a belief that renaming a Christian scheme for dividing time "Common Era" has the opposite of its intended effect to give that scheme a less imperious sway). Wareh (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't see this as any kind of casus belli or precedent. It's the simple application to a single article of the existing guideline: leave it as it was ab origine, unless there's 'substantial reason.' Cynwolfe (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note. A copy of this discussion has been posted to the article talk page

AfD for GL
I have now nominated Greek love for deletion. I have no idea exactly when it will pop out of the admin workshop, piping hot and ready for voting. I hope project loyalties will not be a factor in the vote. McZeus (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The link to this ongoing discussion is here. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Another angle on BCE/CE/BC/AD
I recently found that an editor intending to follow WP:ERA removed CE/AD from some pages on my watchlist where I thought it provided valuable disambiguation (Sosigenes the Peripatetic, Callistratus (sophist)). It turns out that multiple editors believe that it is appropriate (and recommended by the guideline) to strip out CE/AD from references to centuries, so that "a 2nd century writer" will always stand for "a 2nd century AD/CE writer." There is now a discussion at the WP:ERA talk page, where I've said my piece. But it might be a good idea for others with informed opinions about when low-numbered centuries get disambiguated in well-edited scholarly reference prose to watch that discussion and add their own two cents as it develops. Wareh (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Komnenoi
There is currently a discussion of the placement and spelling of this article, and by extension of many Byzantine names. Comments welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline of Roman Republic
Is there an article on the decline of the Roman Republic (not the empire)?Smallman12q (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a single, unified article that I know of. I blush to confess that until this moment I didn't know Decline of the Roman Empire existed, though I hadn't really thought about it since I'm far more interested in the end of the Republic (which is far more finite and documentable than the Empire's fizzling out, if it ever didx). There are several articles that deal with the subject at a certain amount of depth, including the Roman Republic article itself. The careers of Julius Caesar and Augustus are treated in ways that illuminate the subject. Caesar's civil war, Principate, and Constitution of the Roman Republic are others. It's a little tricky to distinguish as an article from the civil wars, and despite George Long's multivolume account, I might wonder whether "end" or even "collapse" would be a better word than "decline," which is apt for the Empire because it's a more gradual process. (All three phrases are used, but an exact Google Books search of "decline of the Roman Republic" does, I fear, give the most numerous results by far.) If there were to be a separate article, it could be structured like the one on the Empire, with scholarly theories of causes, such as "concentration of power and wealth among the few most ambitious generals," "insufficient and inefficient administration and bureaucracy to deal with acquired territorities" (touched on in prorogatio), that sort of thing. I think first of Syme, Roman Revolution, and Gruen, Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Attention would have to be paid to scholars of aristocratic inclination who would date the decline to the Gracchi.


 * It could be argued that such an article is needed. Recently in the New York Times, a couple of columnists have trotted out the America/Rome parallel decline trope, and a number of comments took them to task for not distinguishing between the end of the Republic, which seems a more apt comparison (this tragedy currently titled Waiting for Augustus), and the decline of the Empire. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see we have Crisis of the Roman Republic, although it takes the odd view that the crisis began with the Second Punic War - and ended with Sulla, with the Caesarian wars as aftershocks. A lengthy crisis, indeed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. Well, yes, if you want to take it from the Second Punic War (and I think I actually see the reasoning behind that, if you view the "rise of the great man" as cause for the fall of the republican system of government), I guess "Decline" isn't inept. But it isn't even noon where I am, and I think I've used up all my opinions for the day. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Philippus I Arabs?
There is a claim, made only in [edit summary] that this form with no u is a name of the Roman Emperor Philip the Arab. I find absolutely no use of the form in English; it does occur in German, but it looks to me like an abbreviation or a recurrent misprint. If anybody can shed light on the matter, please comment at Talk:Philip the Arab. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it's an accident, unless it's being transposed from German Wikipedia or something like that. A spell checker would flag Arabus but not Arabs, and that provides at least two ways such a mistake could be introduced.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hades and Pluto
I think a merger of the articles Hades and Pluto (mythology) should be considered. It appears that Hades and Pluto were the same deity from the beginning and not seperate deities that were later associated though interpretatio romana. Pluto (or Pluton) was just another name the Greeks used for Hades (feeling it was less frightening) and when the Romans adopted the Greek gods, they exclusively called him that. This is similar to Dionysis and Bacchus and we don't have a seperate article for the latter. Rome's indigenous underworld gods were Dis Pater and Orcus not Pluto. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In case this is unclear, a merge discussion of sorts has been started at Talk:Pluto (mythology). The Pluto article seems to have more problems than the much better Hades article. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

LacusCurtius
Bill Thayer's site, I mean, not the Roman hole in the ground. Does anyone happen to know what's up with it? Since sometime yesterday, it's failed to load for me. Says the server's not responding. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still getting the same response too. I presume it has something to do with the penelope host at uchicago.edu. Hopefully the issues will be resolved soon. -- Aeonx (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh of relief, for those who may be interested. I dread to think of the extra time I'd spend looking for stuff if I couldn't get to it so easily at LC. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

possible deletion
For the first time (other than an unsourced stub on something that didn't exist), I find myself wanting to have an article deleted. Anyone familiar with my rants and rambles knows that I'm usually on the "keep" side of such things. Therefore, I haven't tagged this article yet, and would very much like some outside views before I put its author through some horrible process. The article is Vegoia and Egeria. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A formal discussion has been opened on this: Articles for deletion/Vegoia and Egeria. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Update!
I feel this WikiProject is going the way of the dodo and I'd like you to help me breath some life back into it!

Firstly, I've made a bunch of edits to Project pages, which originally stemmed from when I realized there was an issue with the template.

To compare the differences, check out google cache version prior edit with the current page.

Next, I would like to review our Goals. If anyone has any suggestions for changes, please post below(indented/bulleted):

Also, if anyone has any suggestions on pages for Collaboration or Tasks, please post below(indented/bulleted):

Regards,

Aeonx (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for this Project is this talk page, all else is commentary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c). Nicely summed up. I'm not really sure what's being asked for here. G&R is alive and well - nothing dodoesque here, as far as I can see. The page is watched and used by the same core of editors who use article pages and each other's talk-pages to communicate. Sure, there are many articles in need of attention; some are dire, others need informed tinkering. I've a dirty great list of "rewrites pending"; quite specialised and already quite full. But I think I might be missing Aeonx's point entirely: have you any particular suggestions, Aeonx? Haploidavey (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that this talk page represents a significant amount of the editorial work of this Wikiproject and I certainly agree having a centralized place for communication is very important. However, my feeling is that a lot of the work done by members (and other users) interested in Classical Greece and Rome topics is largely uncoordinated, and I think we can make significant improvement and edit much more efficiently if we organize and communicate more on activities. Organizing our efforts could also be used to address the backlog as you mentioned.
 * One of the important issues I have noticed is that a great number of articles have not been assessed (or even tagged) for WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Currently ~1500 of 7000 tagged articles are missing a quality rating and 2000 are missing an importance rating. For this reason I have created an Assessment page for this WikiProject. This includes a detailed listing of Quality and Importance of articles; additionally there is a section in which requests can be made for articles to be assessed upto B class. I would really appreciate it if you all add this section to your watch list; as well list articles you have worked on.
 * To try to summarize, what I'm trying to do here, is in essence, create a greater sense of community and organisation of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome; and I'm looking for your help to find out what is important to the WikiProject, suggestions on what we should do, goals you think we should achieve, and ways in which you would like to see others (and yourself) contribute more to the WikiProject and it's articles. -- Aeonx (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon my skepticism, but everything you've said pertains to bureaucracy, not the content of articles. The ratings are a crock. And I truly don't mean to be rude (I'm merely baffled), but while I have nearly 1100 articles on my watchlist, most of them related to this project, I don't recall seeing your name in an edit summary. There are a number of editors involved with this project whose names I recognize with respect — because they get things done and have demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter. So, um, why is it you think we don't have a sense of community? You be the stranger here, pardner. I'm sure you can find a great number of things to do that pertain to this project, and we will all be grateful for it or cry foul, but that word "coordinated" makes me want to quote the great Antiochean Platonist Megan Fox: "I ain't much for bein' owned." Cynwolfe (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I have appeared in some way overly-bureaucratic or aggressive in any way. My interest is this matter only to aid in the development of articles relating to the Classics, and I feel if I can learn more about the main editors I can aid that cause. In regards to the assessment of articles, I'm sorry but I take the ratings of articles very seriously; I believe it is an important part of identifying how to improve articles; especially if you can not naturally edit to WP:MOS and the many other WP guidelines like 99% of the Wikipedia editors. The aspect of "coordination" I am trying to help establish is in no means whatsoever related to control; on wikipedia anyone is free to edit almost anything, when and how they please. What I mean to suggest in terms of 'coordination' and 'community' is more so in regards to helping each other, tasks like developing/improving templates often require several editors input. There is a list of "Tasks" and a "Collaboration" article on the WikiProject page, but they have been there for yonks almost untouched, to me, if someone asks for help and input I and no-one assists that doesn't ring a bell of community. I admit I am relatively new in regards to editing on en-wiki, however, I am by no means new to wikipedias. I know when I am writing an article on a topic, it helps to have other people to provide peer-reviews. I'm hoping you can look past any preconceptions you have of unnecessary bureaucracy and try to look at what you want to achieve, and letting myself and others know so we can work towards that goal. Aeonx (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed noticed that no one is minding the storefront. And in fact some highly active G&R editors are not even formally signed up on the membership list. Me, for one, and I see that this is also true of Haploidavey, Wareh, and P Aculeius. Perhaps we're afraid we'll be asked to bring cupcakes to the next picnic. Some editors who are active on this page (or who regularly respond to invitations posted here to participate elsewhere) are listed as project members, including Pmanderson, who is one of the 400 most active editors on WP, Akhilleus (an admin), Paul August (another admin), Peter cohen, and RomanHistorian. Gun Powder Ma comes to mind as someone who makes solid contributions within this field in the important area of Roman technology, but who may or may not watch this page. EraNavigator is quite active in Roman military history, and not listed as a member. I wonder whether you would be interested in culling the membership list? Those who haven't been active on WP at all for a certain period of time, say a year, six months, whatever, could be moved to an emeriti list which could then be collapse and hidden but for the tab.
 * Sure that should be no problem. -- Aeonx (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, made an attempt at sorting the member list, and I've tried to format the main page so that it appears clean on all common screen/browser resolutions/window sizes, but I'm by no means a web developer or graphic artist. Aeonx (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think what PMA and others have indicated is that when people need help, they come to this talk page and leave a note. For instance, an admin without subject expertise or particular interest might leave a note asking whether an experienced editor could help a new editor working with G&R subject matter. So my bark being worse than my bite, please know that I didn't mean to discourage you. As for my remarks on ratings, I'll leave a note (OK, a long rant and ramble) on your talk page later, to spare others. One task you may wish to take on: the DYK list on the Project Page is not regularly updated, though I do see that two recent Julius Caesar DYKs have been added (I've had several DYKs within this subject area, but never thought about such a thing as listing them here). My feeling is also that the FA list should (on the Project Page) be the most recent articles featured, not those that begin with the letter "A". The "Formerly Recognized" section seems useless in its current form; exactly what went wrong with these? Whoever lists them should make some report on why. Perhaps we could all be more mindful when we create an article to place the G&R template on its talk page, making it easier for enterprising souls such as yourself to nominate DYKs. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In regards to the FA/DYK section, I'm already on it. Yesterday I created a new page on the Wikiproject for Recognized content, it is updated automatically by JL-Bot, however since the bot only runs weekly, it will not be populated for a couple of days. Once that is done, I'll look into replacing the current mainpage list with this automatically generated list. There will probably be some formatting involved, but I'll figure that out when it's generated. I can also use this list to work on improving the Formerly Recognized content section. -- Aeonx (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Recognized content page has been generated by JL-Bot; it will update weekly. I have also added a link to the page from the WikiProject mainpage. Aeonx (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to use Xenobot Mk V to auto-assess unassessed tagged articles
Suggestion to use Xenobot Mk V to auto-assess articles in WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome within the project's unassessed articles; these are articles that are not rated as stub/start/C/B-class etc.

To auto-assess, looks for a stub template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details); it is proposed the default level of confidence be used.

Please feel free to raise any questions or concerns regarding this process. If there are no objections, the task will be posted as a request to the bot after 96 hours(4 days). Aeonx (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Object. In fact, I object to this more strenuously than to almost anything I've ever objected to on WP. Ratings are meaningful only if they're given after thoughtful consideration of the article's quality and relative importance. This implies some knowledge of the subject matter as well as general WP standards. The article could "inherit" a completely mindless rating from another project. Exactly what purpose would this serve? Cynwolfe (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of auto-assessment is to essentially sort out the stubs and articles that have already been assessed. This is so articles that have genuinely have not been reviewed at all, or have conflicting wikiproject assessments can be identified and reviewed. It is possible to not have the rating inherited from other wikiprojects(in which articles would only be rated from unassessed->stub; if the article itself is marked as a stub). Alternatively, another options would be to only inherit if there are multiple WikiProject banners that all share the same rating, this is using the conservative level of confidence in the autoassessment process. Would you agree to either of these uses instead? Aeonx (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Currently there are ~1400 articles that are in the unassessed articles category; no other articles would be assessed, and no existing assessments would be changed from this process. Aeonx (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dionysus, Orpheus and "Thracian mythology"
An IP editor is persisting in making edits to Dionysus and Orpheus with regard to Thracian origins for these two, e.g. here and here. I've reverted once, but the editor persists. See also the comments here and here. Would other editors please weigh in? Paul August &#9742; 22:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tutelary deity
Those interested in the religions of ancient Greece and Rome may have something to contribute at Talk:Tutelary deity. I'm not sure I'm understanding the issues; I've had occasion to link to the article (which is underdeveloped) in working on such articles as Penates and Quintus Valerius Soranus. Lares also links to tutelary deity. The current discussion seems (though I may be misunderstanding) to have to do with "renaming or repurposing" the article because it doesn't accommodate Abrahamic religions. Since I understood these to be monotheistic and thus without tutelary deities, I fear that I may be missing something. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Marseille
The present section on the ancient history of Marseilles says that Thucydides asserts a date (and the early date) for the founding of Massalia; I don't see it. It also says that the Romans exported wine to Marseilles in 500 BC; the source doesn't.

Can somebody help clear this up? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion sought on Glossary
An editor has questioned whether the Glossary of ancient Roman religion ought to exist. Opinions sought at Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Corinth/Ancient Corinth
A debate has started on how the articles on modern Corinth and Ancient Corinth should be differentiated. One view suggests that the article on Corinth should be focused on the city that was founded in 1858, with minimal reference to (and certainly without duplication of material contained in) the Ancient Corinth article. The other view is that the article on modern Corinth should contain a detailed historical overview of the city bearing that name over the ages since the prehistoric era.

The views of project members would be greatly appreciated here.Damac (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability and ancient history
Hi guys! I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and I wondering what are your suggestions when it comes to ancient history articles marked with questionable notability? For example I created the stubs Getica (Dio), Getica (Criton) and Getica (Pârvan). I was hoping to expand them and invite people to contribute. Instead, the first was marked with questionable notability, the other two were merged/removed without any questions asked. I find all this very subjective especially when it comes to ancient history articles. I opened a discussion here. You guys can pitch in and share your thoughts and experience.--Codrinb (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander the Great/GA1
Alexander the Great is being reviewed for Good Article listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow for minor issues related to coverage and authorial tone to be addressed. Any assistance would be welcomed.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge Anacreon and Anacreontea?
See Talk: Anacreontea and offer opinions thanks. McZeus (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sicilia (Roman province)
Hey, I'm not actively contributing at the moment, only checking my watchlist, but would someone be able to take a look at what's up with Sicilia (Roman province)? All the content's been deleted by an IP who earlier had replaced it with vandalism — but there may be some legitimate questions there, as the article (which should've been classed as a stub) was unsourced, I think. I'd take care of this myself but can't devote the time. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Project name
About the project, its name, and its purpose, the source of ambiguity is probably "classical". "Ancient Greece and Rome" might've been better and would include late antiquity. "Classical" presumably means "classical antiquity" here (and not just the "Classical" periods of ancient Greece and Rome), but "classical antiquity" usually acts as a cultural label for the Graeco-Roman world prior to Christianization. From the activity I've seen here, most members think that the project should cover ancient Rome in all its phases, Regal, Republican, Imperial, and Christian. I do, anyway, so just my thoughts. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just sneaked in here. Yes, excellent suggestion. Haploidavey (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Changing this into a new section, hope that's ok. Yes, that's what confused me. That and the comments on members' interests on the project page. I'd like to see a name change so that it's obvious to new users that this covers the Empire. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have difficulty imagining the reader who will conclude that Classical Greece and Rome excludes Augustus or Virgil or Pausanias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the point was that "Classical" might be taken to exclude late antiquity, not that "Classical" would exclude Vergil. I was unaware that anyone would exclude the reign of Augustus from the Classical period of ancient Rome. I don't care about the name, as long as someone doesn't come along and use it as a niggling argument that the project should have nothing to do with Theodosius. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree: the Roman Empire was not postclassical. (That said, I can imagine many acceptable alternatives, including "ancient.") Wareh (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Request assessment for a father-loving lass
Hi classicists. I'm in the middle of a ce-assist for Myrrha. Request an assessment as article seems more like a C or B than Start. Came here since you all seem to have more action than the other two projects that this falls under (we can just duplicate the grades). Thanks! TCO (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * She's reviewed.TCO (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate articles?
First I'll say that although these all have this project's template on them, I'm not sure that the Late Antiquity of the Roman Empire falls into this project's purview. About 5 years ago the same editor created Dominate and Principate and also Roman Emperor (Principate) and Roman Emperor (Dominate). The only post to the talk page of the latter says "This entire page has serious issues. Is it meant to be an examination of the constitutional status of emperors post-Diocletian? Or just a list of emperors and their dynastic relations? The initial paragraph, despite reading like Edward Gibbon, indicated the former - yet the body of the article is more a very confused treatment of the latter. The article doesn't currently do anything useful. I think what would be much more sensible would be to create a page about the constitutional status of Roman emperors, and how that changed over time, rather than this unreadable hodgepodge". I agree. In fact, it doesn't even link to Dominate. None of these articles are properly sourced The only source mentioned for Principate, which has no citations, is an earlyh 19th century German Encyclopedia and it's not clear how that was used. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dougweller. Roman Emperor (Principate) and Roman Emperor (Dominate) seem like list articles in disguise, and could perhaps be reconstructed as such. My first impression (only) is that Principate and Dominate can stand as independent articles, and the lack of proper sourcing addressed in revision. These kinds of articles — where someone's just swiped swathes of prose from somewhere — unfortunately still exist, and signal themselves with their abrupt, non-Wiki ledes. (Will make a separate comment about the other issue, in case members want to respond to one point and not the other.) Cynwolfe (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One might add the article Roman Emperor (Late Empire) and its problems to the above list.


 * Imho, and disregarding any issues of citation for a mo', the potentially baffling key concepts that might lead one to seek explanation at the articles Principate and Dominate seem entirely modern. Perhaps these two articles could more usefully discuss the critical historiography of the terms. On the rest, I agree. Of course, we already have Roman Emperor, in need of tlc. I'd have thought this should provide the essentials of constitutional background and development. Haploidavey (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The concepts can be well resourced, that's no problem, although the descriptions in the leads may be not exactly optimal. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Principatus is ancient, from Tacitus and Suetonius and Pliny. The OED says that Charles Merivale used principate for the office of princeps senatus; J. B. Bury is the first citation for the modern sense. I presume Dominate is an analogy; it appears by the 1911 Britannica. That puts both at the turn of the century, ?from Mommsen? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Corruption of names
Hello,

Having been informed of Wikipedia's current naming policies--namely, that Greek and Latin names should be revised into utterly ahistorical forms, I wanted to explore the possibility of opening a referendum to eliminate the Anglicization enforced by WP:ROMANS. How would one go about doing so?

Thanks, Venomlord99 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't ahistorical to recognize that in English the Augustan historian has been most often referred to as Livy, and the dictator as Julius Caesar, and the lover of Cleopatra as Antony (though Mark or Marc might provoke more dissent). In fact it would be ahistorical not to recognize that the Anglicized forms have their own very long history (Chaucer, Shakespeare). Those are the names that are most likely to be typed into the search box and looked up by people who use WP as a reference. The articles do give official nomenclature (see for instance a quite full explanation of the nomenclature of the person most often called in English Augustus or Octavian). This is hardly "corruption," though I myself can never hold back a schoolgirl giggle at fr:Tite-Live. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if these names were given within the article ("...often anglicized as 'Livy'..."), but not included in the title of the articles; whether or not the names have a long history, the history of the actual names of these people is still longer. I do agree that if people searched 'Livy' in Wikipedia, they should be forwarded to the appropriate page, that they might obtain the information for which they are searching, and yet also find that the names popularly given to some figures are corrupted, in the sense of Merriam-Webster's definition ("a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct"). Venomlord99 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The standard for correct English usage (and the article titles name the articles according to this: see WP:UE) is current and widespread usage. It may be true that modern English names for Caesar, Livy, etc., are "corrupted" forms.  But these corrupted forms are the correct English names.  From long observation of these policies, I am very dubious that you'd find much support for a change on Roman names.  The bottom line is that we can't name articles by what was correct in Classical Latin.  We call the Mahabharata by its Sanskrit name because there is no English name that has come historically (not ahistorically!) to be at home in English speakers' mouths; on the other hand, Iliad will never change its title to Ilias, because English speakers will never start calling the poem that.
 * On the other hand, I firmly believe that every article on a classical subject should immediately, in the lead, give the ancient Latin or Greek name when possible. I'd recommend you channel your energies into adding that information.  This way at least the reader will instantly be made aware of the ancient names.  Wareh (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I endorse Wareh's wise approach wholeheartedly, and emphasize that this includes Greek. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These edits to Julius Caesar are at issue. There is no English, or Latin, word Iulian; it does occur in Rumanian, although not as an adjective, but we are written in English. The difference between Julius and Iulius (in Latin) is a matter of letter-form, of script merely; and even as pedantry, it is incomplete: there is a case for C. Iulius Caesar (and one for C. Julius Caesar), but Gaius Iulius Caesar is idiomatic nowhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was rightly reverted, for multiple good reasons. Iulio-Claudian is not any language; when the editor is piping links e.g. Sallustius, Ploutarkhos, it should go without saying that the Wikipedia-standard nomenclature (governing article titles) is being pointedly set aside.  Wareh (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Livy
One of the tasks listed on the front page is "Incorporate valuable information from Livy's Ab Urbe Condita into Roman history articles".

I am aready doing this task (and have been working on it for some time). I started with Book 1, most of which I found had never been incorporated into wikipedia. I am now working through book 2. Whilst alot of the info can be found somewhere in wp, it is generally badly organised, unreferenced, and incomplete.

Leave the early books to me and I will finish them. But if someone wants to do the later books (say 10+) would be great. --Urg writer (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Heavens, who asked for that?


 * Livy is an unreliable (and primary) source if there ever was one; we should not include most of Book I (I see that Horatius and Porsenna is now included, in our voice, at length) or much of the first ten books; the second decade exists only in summary. The line should be whether modern secondary sources agree - or at least argue - that the event might have happened as Livy presents it; Livy's version of Lars Porsenna was inconsistent with the documentary record in antiquity; it is inconsistent with the archaeology of Rome now. (Describing the account as Livy's - and warning the reader what that is likely to mean - would be a different matter.)   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It is important for wikipedia to include articles about topics such as Ancus Marcius (a king of Rome) and Lars Porsena (a king of Clusium who attacked Rome), even though the historical accuracy of the accounts of their lives - or indeed their historical existence - is arguable.

The text of such articles will of course rely heavily on the work of Livy, firstly because he is one of the few comprehensive and detailed sources on that period of Rome's history, and secondly because the historical accuracy of his work is well respected. Livy, in true historiographical fashion, acknowledges that by his time the accounts of Rome's earliest period were questionable, but he nevertheless recorded those accounts, and his work remains invaluable to modern studies of ancient Rome.

Of course references to secondary sources, where they cast legitimate doubt on the account of Livy or others, should be included, in addition to what Livy says. I'd be thrilled if you wanted to help out with that.

But the reason why it is important to include the works of Livy in wikipedia can be seen from articles such as Tullia (daughter of Servius Tullius), Battle of Silva Arsia, Roman-Etruscan Wars, and Caenina (town), amongst others, which did not exist before I started incorporating Livy's early works.--Urg writer (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The historical accuracy of Livy is well respected. By whom? Let us set aside the first century BC, for much of which he would be  a contemporary witness, if only  those books had survived; this is the sixth and seventh century BC. To paraphrase Foster's introduction to his edition of Livy: the value of the first books of Livy is not his claims as to what happened, but his evidence as to what the classical Romans thought happened, and what values they applied to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We cover notable fictions, and notable history - we just have to be careful that the standing of the matter we cover (according to reliable sources) is absolutely clear to the reader. It's when fictions are reported as if they are history (and "According to Livy so-and-so was..." can be an example of just that kind of misrepresentation) that we have problems.  So perhaps we need a better formula than "rely on Livy."  Reliance on Livy in an article that implies historical coverage is always wrong.  Reporting of what Livy says, with due warnings, is always right.  And articles about fictional characters need to make it clear that that's what they're about: of course Puck (Shakespeare) will rely on Shakespeare, and Diotima of Mantinea will rely on Plato, but they too can also be fairly asked for WP:RS outside those authors (i.e. scholars' conclusions about the status and interest of the fictional persons).  Wareh (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflicet with Wareh:] If this were a Wikipedia article, you'd be asked for a citation for the claim that "the historical accuracy of his work is well respected" :) What he says is always interesting; it's notable, too; but, so far from being accurate in any absolute sense, it's often impossible to be sure whether he even "recorded those [earlier] accounts" reliably (it's often pretty certain he didn't). His work, especially in the earlier books, is more like a prose epic, and written with a contemporary political purpose.
 * So, I'd say, you are right that those topics need to be in Wikipedia, but to start out by writing them from Livy will mean that they will have to be completely rewritten afterwards.
 * If you have access to Ogilvy's commentary on the early books of Livy, I think you would get a clearer idea of how modern scholars approach each of those topics in turn. But other editors may have quite different suggestions here ... And rew D alby  21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see I've edit conflicted with the prediction that cn would be demanded. If you don't have access to Ogilvy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Barthold Georg Niebuhr should be available on the web. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this debate misses the point.

Nobody should seriously question the overall credibility of Livy's work. Analyses such as Gary Forsyth's "Livy and Early Rome: A Study in Historical Method and Judgment" discuss the care with which it seems Livy composed his history.

Of course that is a general statement. As I said above, even Livy acknowledges that the early history of Rome was of doubtful accuracy. Nobody should give his early history more weight than Livy himself. But why shouldn't the early chapters be incorporated into wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urg writer (talk • contribs) 22:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen Urg writer make good and useful contributions, but I've been concerned about the practice of simply asserting what Livy says and leaving it at that, as s/he must know from my reverting at rex sacrorum, and cautions expressed at Servius Tullius. (I share PMA's alarm at the bare existence of the "task"; is there a consensus to delete it from the project page?) Of course the ancient sources should be present, cited, and quoted in a way that illuminates the topic. But it seems to me that this practice falls under WP:OR. If I wrote an article on "Lizards in ancient magic and medicine," and simply compiled references in ancient sources including spells and prescription recipes, surely that would be OR. If I wrote an article on Etruscan mirrors that consisted of nothing but my own description of the images on them, even if I identified each mirror by its museum inventory number, this would be OR. If I wrote an article on a poem by Catullus that paraphrased the poem in my own words, with no secondary sources, this would be OR. (I'm tagging Roman-Etruscan Wars accordingly.) So I don't think it's adequate to start an article with nothing but ancient sources; surely you can come up with one or two modern sources that shed light on the topic, even for a stub. The same goes for incorporating Livy into preexisting articles. If you have Gary Forsythe at hand, for instance, you could be citing him along with the Livy. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Original research means original research, not incorporating primary sources. The article on Roman-Etruscan wars contains zero original research. I accept the single sources tag is appropriate as no other source is cited at this stage (if anybody else has other sources, please include them!).

My task has merely been to incorporate Livy's description of events. I am always very careful to cite the source, so that anybody can, at a later stage, review what has been incorporated and include other sources. The task of incorporating the entirety of Livy's works is mammoth, and will keep me busy for a long time to come. If and when I complete that task I am happy to come back and incorporate other sources as you suggest.

If the concern is that Livy's early history is (as Livy says) possibly partly myth, one solution is that all aticles which relate to the Roman kingdom period (pre 509 BC) include a line such as "Readers of this article should note that information about is limited, and in large part is known from unverifiable ancient texts."

Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urg writer (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So according to your definition of OR, I would be entitled to post any of the three article I gave as examples above? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Urg, have you read wikipedia's guidelines on the use of primary sources? I'd not even dare paraphrase Livy - or rather, one of the various English translations of his work - without guidance of (and reference to) sound, secondary scholarship on his material. I don't know who added the invitation to "incorporate" his work - I don't know what that means and though I'm certain it was a suggestion in good faith, I'd be happy to see it rescinded. Haploidavey (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to sound arrogant. I'm just looking for a legitimate solution, accepting (as I think everyone does) that the content of Livy's history is appropriate material for an encyclopedia, if properly referenced and annotated etc etc. What shocked me when I started looking at Livy's works was that so much of what he writes about isn't included anywhere in wp. Tullia (daughter of Servius Tullius) was an prime example of this. Secondary sources, where they add something to the topic, will of course need to be incorporated, and wp's editing system allows this to occur. However, the only way of systematically identifying and incorporating all of the missing content is to go through Livy from beginning to end.

Cynwolfe, in relation to your tags, I just think the single source tag you added is more appropriate because I didn't actually carry out any 'research' per se. The lack of other sources can then be fixed by incorporating other references.

As for the concern about the veracity of Livy's early works (which seems to me to really be a concern about the Roman kingdom than about Livy), would a comment like the one I suggested above fix the issue?

PS - cynwolfe I had a look at your profile - your list of Roman articles created is impressive! And sorry for the rex sacrorum business - I didn't actually realise I had added the same reference to Livy twice (I didn't have the page tagged) - having now read your comment, I accept what you say.--Urg writer (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't sound arrogant: but I'm not too sure you're listening. Please, please read carefully what everyone has said above. Then take a wander through any of Wikipedia's articles on Republican Rome; take a look at the sources to whom Livy is not just unavoidable but entirely necessary. He's abundant. His content and a scholarly analysis thereof is the basis of a ginormous plethora of scholarship on Roman history and historiography. His work is a source (not the source) for a great number of Wikipedia articles; not least Livy and Ab Urbe Condita (book). But we don't start articles with Livy. We start them with modern scholarship. Haploidavey (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify one point, although we colloquially refer to Livy as a primary source, he is in fact a (very old) secondary source. He was writing about events which occurred hundreds of years before his birth, and what he wrote was based on multiple historical sources available to him. He certainly does not fall within the wikipedia definition of primary source referred to above. In terms of wp 'rules', it is therefore permissible to use his material to begin an article.

Of course, like everyone else, I accept a well written article should be based on other sources, but that is a task that requires more hands than my two.

Haploi, sorry if what I wrote above was confusing. I wasn't suggesting that none of Livy had been incorporated into wikipedia. That is definitely not the case. Rather, I was making the point that entire topics covered by Livy, such as famous people, battles, wars, gods, inter alia, referred to by Livy aren't detailed anywhere in wikipedia. The best way I can see to begin covering those topics is to use Livy. Otherwise how can we ever be sure all the topics he mentions are incorporated? (rhetorical question)

I'm still keen for someone to put forward a sensible solution to this problem. And I still think the line I suggested above might possibly solve it. --Urg writer (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, strictly speaking Livy is a "primary source" only for his own era and, as has been pointed out already, wrote with a particular agenda. For earlier times, he epitomises multiple sources, now lost; if only by default, this makes him the closest we have to a primary source for earlier events (and again, with his own agenda, there probably being no such critter as agenda-free history). On the rest, though - we're not obliged to epitomise him in turn, nor to provide an article on every place, every name or every battle he mentions. Much as I dislike lawyer-soup, I must resort to wikipedia's guidelines, particularly on the notability of article topics. Haploidavey (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, however, Livy was a tertiary source in his own time: he comsulted and combined secondary sources; even when a primary source was avaolable to him, he took its content from secondary sources. To us, however, he is primary and has the usual dangers of a primary source: we cannot check his sources, and he is not writing chiefly to portray things as they actually were.


 * This is what Forsythe says too; he is not asserting the historicity of Tullia or Rhea Sylvia, merely asserting that Livy is a good tertiary source, who has combined his sources well and downplays the openly supernatural aspects of the stories; this does not make the stories true - any more than the careful compilation of Bullfinch's Mythology, or the rationalizations of Robert Graves, make Icarus a true story. Urg, however, writes of Tullia in the same tone as one would write of Marie Antoinette. Please don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * To Urg writer: I don't think you sounded arrogant, and you've made useful contributions. I just think when you're going to the trouble of creating a new article, you need to find a couple of modern secondary sources. This addresses Haploidavey's notability concerns as well. I think the topics I've seen you start articles on have been notable, but if they are, then finding supporting materials should be no problem. I'd seen Roman-Etruscan Wars some time ago and had concerns, but didn't want to take time to explain why. The narrative you present is based entirely on Livy, and yes, that makes it "original," in the sense that you've constructed an entire article based on your own reading and understanding of Livy, and presented it not as Livy's account, but as the account of the Roman-Etruscan Wars. This is different from summarizing the plot of a story (say, giving a summary of Apuleius's Cupid and Psyche), within a larger article; in this case, the summary is the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OK no problems I will fix the articles based solely on Livy.--Urg writer (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)