Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 7

questions about consul box
Is there any consensus on the following two questions pertaining to the consul box that accompanies articles on men who held the consulship? If there isn't a preexisting consensus, any suggestions or thoughts? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Use the standard abbreviations for the praenomen, or spell it out? (My inclination is to use the abbreviation, since the purpose of a box is to be quick-glance compact).
 * 2) Placement on the page: Bottom (last thing before categories)? At the end of the article narrative (before such things as bibliography, see also, notes, all that)? Elsewhere? (I tend to think that it doesn't serve much purpose at the very bottom, since most users probably don't read the notes and bibliographical data and thus won't see it; but I'm not sure where it looks best, and sometimes it can create graphic awkwardness.)
 * We should probably use the standard abbreviations more than we do - but I guarantee that if we do, somebody will screw up C. and Cn. (unless you are volunteering to do all thousand years' worth, which I don't recommend).
 * At the very end is standard practice; see Winston Churchill. It's where readers will look for them, and avoids developing two sections for bibliography, notes, external links.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your faith that readers look at the scholarly apparatus is encouraging. The Churchill article has more bells and whistles than any other biography I've looked at; that was worth the trip in itself, like driving 20 miles to see the world's largest ball of string. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I have faith they look past the apparatus, to the large colorful box at the bottom - if they know about succession boxes at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Women in Ancient Rome and Pater familias
We have a good faith editor editing both articles who really needs help. First it was huge chunks of copyvio from a law book, now edits like "Tell me, what did American Law say about women between 1799 to 1860?" and "Who was a Pater Familias? Well he was your legitimate father provided you are the product of a lawful marriage." These aren't subjects I know about and I've got some new Wikipedia responsibilities which mean I don't have time to coach a new editor. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's taken me a while, I just want to thank those editors who stepped up to help improve these articles. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Are translations primary or secondary sources?
There's a wide-ranging dispute at Talk:Triple Goddess that might be of interest to members of this project. I am seeking input on one specific facet of the dispute that this project is well-positioned to answer, namely: are translations primary sources or secondary sources? That is, when Stanley Lomardo translates the Iliad, Michael Grant translates Tacitus, or Charles Fornara translates ancient Greek inscriptions, is the resulting English text a primary or secondary source? Does the translation "speak for itself", or must interpretation of the translated text be sourced to reliable, secondary sources? (And yes, I am aware that all acts of translation are acts of interpretation, but I am only asking a basic question about how to use translations on Wikipedia...) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source; in fact, it's worse, since it's seen through a distorting mirror - but that last depends on the intent and competence of the translator. (Translations with extensive commentary that addresses the issue at hand, like much of Peter Levi's or Frazier's Pausanias, are a different matter - but in such cases, cite the note as well as the text.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A translation does not, cannot, speak for itself. Anyone who's seriously studied a language, especially an ancient one, or one that's not directly related to your own, knows this. There are, for instance, outright errors in translations, as well as thousands of interpretive acts. Tiny example: the 1982 Penguin translation of Caesar's Gallic Wars (1.23) calls Lucius Aemilius "the commander of Caesar's Gallic cavalry"; the Latin says L. Aemilii, decurionis equitum Gallorum, which means "a decurion of the Gallic cavalry"; the error hinges on knowing the difference in Latin between a decurion and a prefect, and the difference in English between "a" and "the". Using the translation would allow you to say quite incorrectly in a Wikipedia article that the commander of Caesar's Gallic cavalry during the Helvetian campaign was Lucius Aemilius. As Septentrionalis points out, a translation is not a commentary; a dictionary, however, is a secondary source, and should allow an editor to say that no, decurionis ≠ praefecti.
 * I fled the Triple Goddess article a long time ago. The reasoning there is utterly circular. First, define "triple goddess" to mean only the 20th-century notion of Crone-Mother-Maiden; then exclude any other definition, regardless of how many expressions in Greek and Latin sources can only or best be translated as "triple goddess" in English, such as Horace's diva triformis. How anyone could read this invocation and not see the concept of a "triple goddess" is beyond me. A secondary source is required if you want to say what this passage means, or whether it was a reaction to or influenced by Christian trinitarianism, or get into other intrepretations; but Betz's text verifies self-evidently that the concept of a "triple goddess" existed in antiquity; there are no issues of translation regarding "triple" and Greek tri- here. Summarizing works of fiction directly from the work is OK on Wikipedia; the same principle applies here in summarizing the content of the invocation. But the self-appointed guardian of the Triple Goddess article won't allow even a statement that the spells in the PGM invoke a triple goddess. So while the role of translation is a worthwhile and complex issue to discuss, I can't think of a worse place on Wikipedia for discussing it. Cynwolfe (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The reasoning isn't circular at all. "Triple Goddess" today has a specific meaning and is widespread in popular (i.e. non-academic) culture. "Triple Goddess" in ancient Greek had a different meaning, which is now hardly used at all (even within contemporary academic culture which discusses Greek). How these different conceptions actually 'belong together' and interact with each other requires adequate sourcing and proper explanation, not simply listed together in the same article. That is all. If you do want to discuss further can I suggest my talk page or the triple goddess article talk page would be a better venue than here. Further to this in "The Greek Magical Papyri" a meer 34 lines after the goddess is called "three-voiced", she is called "four-faced" etc. ] which hardly fits with the concept of a Triple goddess at all. An indeterminately-multi-faceted goddess, perhaps? The danger of selective quoting is one reason wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources to have done the interpretative work, even of translated texts. Davémon (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * «Triple Goddess" today has a specific meaning.... "Triple Goddess" in ancient Greek had a different meaning....» — You neither specify what these meanings are (or the difference between them), nor provide any source to detail or verify this assertion. Simply saying so doesn't justify deleting or moving ancient "triple goddesses" out of the article titled "Triple Goddess". Again, Wicca doesn't have an exclusive claim on the term, being in fact a relatively quite recent newcomer to using it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the venue for this discussion. Please see Talk:Triple GoddessDavémon (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Septentrionalis's "it's worse, since it's seen through a distorting mirror", and Cynwolfe's "outright errors in translations", both demonstrate that the translation must not be considered the primary source (as the original foreign-language text is), but rather a secondary source which might be unreliable (mistaken). One can challenge a secondary source's interpretation or translation (e.g. "commander"), but how can anyone challenge that a primary source actually does say what it says (e.g. "decurionis")? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is often easy to challenge that a primary source "says what it says" (is the text an emendation? Should it be emended?) and always possible to challenge what it means: does mais que diable allait-il faire dans cette galère! refer to galleys, or (as it is often mistranslated) galleries? This is why we prefer secondary sources, who (usually) have the knowledge and have done the work to answer these questions intelligently.

With Helios, who with the triple forms Of triple Graces dance in revel with The stars. You're Justice and the Moira's threads: Klotho and Lachesis and Atropos Three-headed, you're Persephone*, Megaira,   [* book notes this should be Tisiphone] Allekto, many-formed,.... Hard to escape are you; you're Moira and Erinys, torment, Justice and Destroyer,....'' [PGM IV. 2785-2890, the same hymn already chiefly quoted]"When three, count them, three names are given for a trio, it's hard to believe that means "an indefinite number" in the instant case. The translators could and do use the indefinite term "many" about the number of her names. And please don't tell me that counting the names to verify that "three" means "three" constitutes "original research"; it's only answering an "original" dispute about whether the source actually means what it says. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the instant case, the use of triple for an indefinite number is well-established in both Latin and Greek. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Other trios with whom the goddess is equated — e.g. the Graces/Charites, Fates/Moirae, and Furies/Erinyes — are composed of specifically threes and not generic plurals:"''O queen who drive your car on equal course

The opposing argument seems to require footnotes to verify that the translation actually means what it says: e.g. where it says "triple", we cannot quote it as "triple" unless either a footnote or another secondary source verifies that it really means "triple", and not (say) "quintuple". If the translators meant to write "quintuple", surely they could have done so, or at least footnoted that the word was wrong if it was wrong, as they did where names in the original text were wrong; they needn't footnote every right word to assure us that it's right, or the book would have to double in length. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarity in the actual issue at hand, at Talk:Triple Goddess we are specifically discussing Betz, Hans Dieter (ed.) (1989). The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation : Including the Demotic Spells : Texts. The translations have footnotes to explain difficult, obscure, or questionable points. My argument is that where there are no footnotes (or other commentary/correction) the translators & editor saw fit to let the translation "speak for itself" — that is, the translation expressed the original text's meaning plainly enough to need no further explanation.


 * The dispute is not whether The Greek Magical Papyri has the word "triple" in it. I think the position is that an interpretive summary of a given text requires a secondary source, and that a translation does not count as a secondary source for that purpose. Davémon (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just entering this discussion to point out that as I understand it, translations are copyright as they are considered to be original work. Translations can differ in important ways, and at those times we probably should offer more than one translation. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes to the always reasonable Dougweller. As for translating Greek tri- compound epithets in the PGM, SIzzle is right. And there are two points: one, these epithets are never consistently translated any way other than "triple" or "thrice", because that is what they mean; two, a dictionary is a secondary source. In the example above, citing the OLD would surely be an acceptable way to show that a decurion commands a small unit, not the whole cavalry, if someone had quoted the translation. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another point about using Betz: Betz himself did not do most of the translations, and as Sizzle says, he annotates, explains, or emends the translations with reference to Preisendanz's Greek text. This is secondary scholarship. Betz's edition of PGM is the product of scholarship; it isn't a "creative" translation in the manner of, say, Robert Lowell doing Greek tragedy, or Seamus Heaney's wonderful The Cure at Troy (for Philoctetes) which seeks to be a living poetic drama. The aim of PGM is to be as transparent as possible: the Greek words τρίκτυπε, τρίφθογγε, τρικάρανε, τριώνυμε, θρινακία, τριπρόσωπε, τριαύχε|νε, τρισσοῖς, τριόδων, τρισσῶν all contain the numerical element tri-; this is not a matter of interpretation, but of looking up words in the dictionary. The words are used to express the concept of a single goddess with a triple aspect, manifested in various ways (voice, face, etc.) and under various names (Selene and Artemis here). The content of the invocation can be summarized straightforwardly, just as someone might summarize the plot of Harry Potter; interpretation would require further secondary sources.

Since the concept of "triple goddess" demonstrably exists in Greek and Latin sources (I once provided a list of references to goddesses addressed with epithets meaning "triple" in Latin that is now archived at the Triple Goddess talk page), their relation to the Neopagan construct is irrelevant. How can one editor be allowed to say that the concept of "triple goddess" (lower case) doesn't exist in antiquity because it isn't the same as the 20th century concept, and so no mention of it will be allowed? Yes, the goddess who is hailed as "triple" at one point and in many aspects is later said to have four faces; it is the play of unity and multiplicity, and the neopythagorean theology of numbers, that is expressed haphazardly in these non-elite texts. Mary Beard uses the term "triple goddess", for instance, with her customary caution and skepticism. But she does use the term, because it has to be reckoned with if you're talking about Diana Nemorensis and the diva triformis.

Nobody is saying that the article Triple Goddess shouldn't be primarily about the most common concept! It's extremely hard to discuss this without appearing to resort to ad hominem criticism, because the exclusion of the classical material is due to a single editor without regard to consensus, as the talk page and archive show. Sourced contributions are invited; then rejected for failing to conform to the editor's preconceptions. We're just saying that somewhere on Wikipedia there should be a place to explain that various goddesses are invoked in the papyri and in Latin poetry as "triple". The list of goddesses so addressed is consistent throughout the sources: Selene/Luna, Hekate, Persephone/Proserpina, Artemis/Diana. The former article "Triple goddess in antiquity" (one effort to find a place for this material) was attacked and eviscerated so capriciously by a single editor, and without regard for consensus or respect for others' work, that it couldn't be developed properly; it was later merged incorrectly into an article on triadic deities of both genders. The translation issue, as I said above, is real and merits discussion; but Triple Goddess isn't the forum for it, because that's just a turf battle where one person seeks to control the discourse and is persistent enough to drive others away. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted here because I think this project is a natural space to discuss issues of how to handle translations; unfortunately, this thread seems to be dominated by spillover from Triple Goddess, rather than considering the general issue. However, I think most of us agree with Cynwolfe's statement that "The content of the invocation can be summarized straightforwardly, just as someone might summarize the plot of Harry Potter; interpretation would require further secondary sources"--that's not much different than the no original research policy's statement that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."


 * One of the problems in this particular case is that there is dispute over what is description and what's interpretation. At least at one point, the PMG text was used to support the article text: "The publication of the complete texts of the magical papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt provide exhaustive examples of the imagery usually wrongly ascribed to Graves' imagination." In other words, this version of the article claimed that the tri- words in the papyrus text invoke a Triple Goddess in the full, Gravesian sense (mother-maiden-crone and so forth). That's an interpretation, not a description, right? More recently, on the talk page, it seems as if this text is being used to advance the claim that Hecate-Demeter-Persephone are a/the "Triple Goddess", which, once again seems like an interpretive claim, not a descriptive one. And, if I'm reading the discussion here properly, the PMG text can only be used for descriptive purposes; interpretation requires an additional source. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

«on the talk page» — Precisely. The problem would be if the article contained unsourced, unverifiable, or unreliable claims. On the Talk page you specifically asked my opinion about which goddess was represented by which of Hecate's three heads (horse, lion, dog), and I answered (respectively Demeter, Persephone, Hecate) with my reasons — but did not suggest placing that in the article because that would have been my own synthesis. Talk pages don't have the same rules as articles (e.g. objectivity/NPOV; we sign our work specifically because we are discussing our own views there). In the article itself, the Demeter-Persephone-Hecate triad is only mentioned when duly attributed to secondary sources, e.g. Conway and Radford; as it should be. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * «At least at one point, the PMG text was used to support the article text: "The publication of the complete texts of the magical papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt provide exhaustive examples of the imagery usually wrongly ascribed to Graves' imagination." In other words, this version of the article claimed that the tri- words in the papyrus text invoke a Triple Goddess in the full, Gravesian sense (mother-maiden-crone and so forth).» — You're overloading the "imagery" reference; the term "Triple Goddess" does not inherently imply Maiden-Mother-Crone, any more than it does the physical description Graves gave based on his adored women. But since you could and did read the text that way, conceivably others might also, so that phrasing was dropped. Now the text says more clearly: "Spells and hymns in Greek magical papyri assert the triple nature of the goddess (called Hecate, Persephone, and Selene, among other names): 'triple-sounding, triple-headed, triple-voiced..., triple-pointed, triple-faced, triple-necked'." Still no mention of Maiden-Mother-Crone. (Note that the other trios with whom she is equated — e.g. the Graces/Charites, Fates/Moirae, and Furies/Erinyes — are composed of specifically threes and not generic plurals.)
 * Can we move any detailed discussion of content to Talk:Triple Goddess? Davémon (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary sources
Hm, I thought I was asking simple questions. Perhaps we could refocus on the general question of the status of translations? It seems that everyone agrees that translations don't speak for themselves, at least. People have rightly pointed out that translations make interpretations, can be in error, and are considered derivative works for the purpose of copyright. All true, and all indications that translations need to be handled with care. But I don't think this bears on the question of whether they're primary vs. secondary sources. For that, I suggest looking at the usage of library websites: Each of these sources suggest that a translation of a primary source is still a primary source. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Yale University Divinity School Library's "Research Guide for Christianity", which has a section entitled "Primary Sources for Church History" that lists collections of original and translated texts.
 * A University of Pennsylvania Libraries page for Medieval Studies listing collections of primary sources in English translation.
 * "Primary vs. Secondary Sources" at the Princeton Library Reference Desk: "Some types of primary sources include: ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS (excerpts or translations acceptable)..." and later lists Plato's Republic as a primary source for the topic of women in ancient Greece. Presumably they don't mean the original Greek text only...
 * Finally, a book about the use of evidence in writing history, Historical evidence and argument by David P. Henige: "Few translations exact so high a price. But historians who prefer to use translations continue to pay a price for their lack of enterprise. It is the rare historian who does not occasionally require dealing with a translation of a primary or secondary source. The temptation might be to rely on the translation rather than seeking out and deciphering the original text…"
 * Unfortunately all I can respond is that they are primary sources in translation; they therefore have the weaknesses of primary sources (which we do not recommend), sometimes complicated by the problem that editors may be choosing to rely on aspects of the translation which do not represent the original. Translation is a series of choices. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Septentrionalis says, with two additonal points: one, there's a difference between translations that seek to be as transparent as possible (Loeb Classical Library, for instance) and those that seek to "translate" artistic properties of an original work and its overall "feel" (Robert Lowell, Ezra Pound, Seamus Heaney). When it's useful to quote and reference primary sources in conjunction with secondary, the former is preferable for an encyclopedia over the latter. Two, the notes and introductions that accompany 'scholarly' translations are secondary material; Betty Rose Nagle's notes to Ovid's Fasti, which she translated, are the product of a scholarly career as an Ovid specialist. I don't think anyone's saying you can't quote primary sources, or at least I hope not; you just can't construct your own argument relying only on primary sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * you just can't construct your own argument relying only on primary sources.  Well put; I would add that if the argument has already been made by secondary sources, and is consensus among them, we do better to cite them; they are likely to catch when a primary source is misleading.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lowell and Pound and Heaney don't deserve scare quotes (well, some think Heaney does): they do translate the aspects of the original they choose to bring over. Li Bai (Li Po for traditionalists) could well quote Pound as well as Arthur Waley; but most of the time that's not what an encyclopedia wants from a translation. To quote a notorious fourth instance, for what the heroes actually did, use the Loeb Homer, not Pope. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the scare quotes in the case of Pound and Heaney would be their own, as they use words other than "translations" to describe what they did. Lowell too, I think. Heaney's The Cure at Troy is a gorgeous, accessible work that is one of my personal favorite translations of any ancient work; however, I wouldn't quote from it in an article about the Philoctetes unless I were discussing translation and the literary tradition per se. That's all I was trying to get at. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As Septentrionalis says, "Translation is a series of choices." The translator is interpreting the original text, no less than a commenter who paraphrases or summarizes it; either one is a "relay" interposed between the original (primary) text and the reader, hopefully boosting the signal, but possibly distorting it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * «"It is the rare historian who does not occasionally require dealing with a translation of a primary or secondary source. The temptation might be to rely on the translation rather than seeking out and deciphering the original text…"» — This does not seem to claim that "a translation of a primary source" is the primary source; on the contrary, Henige seems to be urging that the former should not be mistaken for the latter.


 * I see what you mean, but I think I'm unclear about the goal of this discussion, which is presumably not to discuss the theory of translation. What are you getting at in terms of how to use translations on Wikipedia? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of a foreign-language text, especially in a language the Wikipedia-editor cannot read or from a source the editor can't access, a translation may be as close to the primary text as he/she can approach. (Just as with an inaccessible English-language source of which the editor can only find quotes in other texts.) This must be recognized as a secondary source, with the same risk of distortion or mistaken rendering as in any other secondary source. (The reliability of translators in general is no more certain than the reliability of summarizers or paraphrasers in other types of secondary sources.) A truly reliable translator will honestly indicate where a meaning is doubtful, ambiguous, or requires more explanation than a straight word-for-word rendering, as with the footnotes and other commentary in Betz et al. If such care is consistently taken, then some reliance can be placed on the unfootnoted text as meaning what it says — because if it didn't, it would have been footnoted. However, we have no such assurance about entirely unfootnoted/uncommented translations (Is the translation a perfect fit or a series of best guesses? Deponent saith not). Does that clarify? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This must be recognized as a secondary source. But it's not. It has all the problems of a primary source, and the "truly reliable" translator invoked does not exist; and if he does, no publisher would put out a translation which noted every variant reading and discussed every possibly arguable choice of rendering, to say nothing of every possible way in which the idiom of the foreign tongue differs from English. Even Nabokov's Eugene Onegin does not do that; there isn't room. What is true is that Nabokov's notes are a secondary source; but to assume (as this post does) that any point which even the most careful translator does not annotate is unproblematic is wishful thinking.


 * Even where the language is unproblematic, the thought may be. What is Thucydides' intent in the Melian Dialogue? That is equally unclear in Greek and in English, and it is not the function of the translator to copy the thousands of pages of poli. sci. written on the subject - the most that can be hoped is a general note, and most versions of Thucydides don't have one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Or another example might be dialogues from Plato, which are often not difficult Greek, but can be hard to translate into sensible English because of how the Greek article is used to turn participles into nouns. And even if you get a crystal-clear, faithful translation, it doesn't answer the philosophical questions. But still, even if you don't read the original, the Cratylus filtered through English is still a primary source. It's also true that some translations that have transparent intent incorporate annotations, in effect, within the text — maybe by providing amplification of obscurely adjectival place names, or such. And it's true that a translator faced with the Melian Dialogue will likely familiarize herself with the scholarly tradition on the passage, and will likely have an opinion on its meaning or meanings. But this interpretation is only implicit, and good translators usually seek to preserve deliberate ambiguities of meaning (rather than of language). I don't see how you can extrapolate and cite such an implicit interpretation; with specific sentences, of course, I've seen Wiki editors offer two or three translations that differ in emphasize or in how they deal with a problematic reading. So Sizzle, I still don't see exactly what you're asking. Could you give a specific or hypothetical example? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I did briefly above, and then the request was made to move the topic back to Talk:Triple Goddess, which is where it came from. When Betz et al. render the text, over and over and over again, as saying "triple", may we in summary say "The triplicity of the Goddess in these texts is a recurrent theme", or must we cite some other source as assuring us that "triple" really does mean "triple" and not "quintuple"? My position is that (if the original text had meant "quintuple") the translators had the option to either say "quintuple" or footnote the word they did use ("triple"*) as "* This actually should read 'quintuple'." Since they have footnoted many other difficult or dubious terms, but did not thus footnote any of these "triple"s, we may presume that the word they did use is the word they actually intended to use, and no other source need be cited to prove it. (The actual primary text, as you noted, uses τρίκτυπε, τρίφθογγε, τρικάρανε, τριώνυμε, θρινακία, τριπρόσωπε, τριαύχε|νε, τρισσοῖς, τριόδων, τρισσῶν .) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see. The text in question is Papyri Graecae Magicae IV.2785-2890, which is one prayer out of a large corpus. If we say "The triplicity of the Goddess in these texts is a recurrent theme", it seems like we're making a generalization about Greek magical papyri as a whole. Is it justifiable to make that argument based on a single text?
 * As linked above, the texts (plural) included not only PGM IV. 2785-2890 on pp.90-91, but also PGM IV. 1390-1495 on p.65, PGM IV. 2441-2621 on pp.84-86, and PGM IV. 2708-84 on p.89. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On quintuple vs. triple, you are misrepresenting the argument. No one has ever said that "triple" might mean "quintuple"--this is an obvious absurdity. At Talk:Triple Goddess, you mentioned that Betz's introduction to the translated papyri says: "The goddess Hekate, identical with Persephone, Selene, Artemis, and the old Babylonian goddess Ereschigal, is one of the deities most often invoked in the papyri." (p.xlvi) As I pointed out, Betz's statement has nothing to do with Hekate's "triple nature", or lack thereof . It's a statement that Hekate is equated with many other (single) goddesses, as can be easily seen in PGM IV.2785ff., which identifies its addressee (Selene, not Hekate) as Justice, Mene, Nature, the "Mother of all things", Chaos, Night, Darkness, Necessity, Moira, Erinys, and Destroyer, among others.
 * Per your questions there, «Are you going to make Hecate a quintuple goddess now, or what?» and «Did this article change to quintuple goddess while I wasn't looking?», along with your insistence that Betz hadn't said anything about triplicity. (Well, not on p.xlvi, but sufficiently in text.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, it's true that this text addresses Selene with many epithets involving tri- ("three" or "triple"). It also identifies her with goddesses that come in trios--the Graces, Fates, and Furies. (And, as I just said, it identifies her with many single goddesses.) What does this mean, and how should it be described? It seems like we have two notions of "threeness" here--a single goddess invoked with "tri-" epithets and triads of goddesses. Is "triplicity" (as Sizzle wants to say) or "triple nature" (as the article currently reads) supposed to cover both types of "threeness", or are "triplicity"/"triple nature" meant to imply something else? To me, choices between these words look like an interpretation of the text--a decision about what these "threes" say about Hecate/Selene. If you want a simple description of the text, just say that "in this prayer, Selene is addresed with epithets containing 'triple'", and is equated with the trios the Graces, Fates, and Furies. Or, we could go with this source, an introduction to a translation of the prayer in Anthology of classical myth: primary sources in translation (oh yeah, note the diction "primary sources in translation" there): "Hecate was also associated with things that come in three, hence the references to "triple ways," "three-faced," etc." The statement here--"associated with things that come in three"--is quite different than saying "this prayer shows Hecate's triple nature". One is a statement about appearances, the other about essences.
 * Note that in PGM IV. 2785-2890 she is not only equated with the three Moirai and the three Erinyes, but also told "you're Moira and Erinys,'" both singular. That actually is footnoted: "... This identification is somewhat inconsistent with l.2798, where the three Furies are named; the same is true of Moira (l.2859) as compared with the three Moirai...." So there again (twice) we see a name referring to both one and three. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, there's also the question of why this prayer should be discussed at all in an article that is about a 19th-21st century concept, but this thread is already in WP:TLDR territory, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, there's also the question of why this should be called "a 19th-21st century concept" when its (1) its adherents keep claiming they're venerating an ancient (not modern) deity, and (2) the papyri and Ovid and Hesiod et al keep indicating triplicity in that deity. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) do you think the article should agree with them? Because that seems to be the motivation behind much of what you're saying. 2) What does "triplicity" mean? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sizzle, could you please not interrupt my post with your own? When you break things up like that, it becomes unclear who wrote what. And I'm really unclear what you mean when you say that Betz didn't say anything about triplicity "on p.xlvi, but sufficiently in text". Do you mean that Betz "says" something about triplicity in the translated text? If so, I must point out that 1) the translator of PGM IV.2785-2890 in The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation is Edward O'Neil and 2) the translator doesn't say anything in the text, so O'Neil says nothing about Hecate. The prayer says something about her. Just as if I read Reeve's translation of the Republic, it's not Reeve who says "I went down to the Piraeus yesterday with Glaucon...", it's Plato. (Actually, it's Plato's Socrates, but let's keep things simple.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We can return to saying "Betz et al" then, as better to refer to a team project than "Betz" for short. But the translators still chose to say that the meaning of these τρι - words was "triple" whatever, not "quintuple" whatever. They rendered that interpretation. You may think they were wrong to do so; you might have chosen to translate the words differently. This is the same sort of argument you might have with another writer's summary or paraphrase or even book review — "That's not what it means!" You can have that argument because the translator, like the summarizer or paraphraser or reviewer, is not the original writer; and the translation, like the summary or paraphrase or review, is not the original text, but a derivative work, secondary to the original. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is really verging on the stupid. Apparently, then, you would say that Reeve said "I went down to the Piraeus yesterday with Glaucon..."; we can only say that Plato said Κατέβην χθὲς εἰς Πειραιᾶ μετὰ Γλαύκωνος...
 * Also, you're still misrepresenting the "quintuple" point. Did I note that Betz's introduction says nothing about Hecate's triplicity, but says that she's equivalent to four other goddesses? Yes, and you've agreed with this above. Did I sarcastically ask whether this meant Hecate was a quintuple goddess? Well, yes, because of its irrelevance to whether Hecate is a "triple goddess." Did I ever say that "triple" meant "quintuple"? No. So please stop pretending saying something that I'm not, and using this to avoid answering the point I'm actually making: it's obvious that the prayer uses lots of tri- words. It's not obvious what the use of those words means about Hecate, and I think holding it up as evidence of "triplicity" or a "triple nature" (without ever explaining what those terms are supposed to mean!) is an interpretation of the text. (Although, if one is to go with your theory of translation, it's an interpretation of an interpretation, which is worse.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The formulation would be "Reeve said that Plato said 'I went down to the Piraeus yesterday with Glaucon...'." As opposed to (say) "Some first-term student said that Plato said 'I went down to the Piraeus yesterday like Glaucon...', getting the word μετὰ wrong." The second version also translates the primary source, but does it wrong; will you claim that it, like Reeve's version, is also a primary source? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to what you can say based on translation, with PGM and triple goddess as example: you can say that in the PGM, "triple goddess" is an epithet used in invocations of deities including Selene and Artemis. The triplicity is expressed particularly in a series of epithets found at (cite passage). These epithets include (list). You can say that the goddesses invoked by these epithets are identified with a series of other goddesses (list) and are associated at points with goddess triads such as the Fates and Graces (cite passages). This is simply summarizing content. You can't say anything more than this without a secondary source. It is important to understand that "triple goddess" is a descriptive epithet, not a distinct goddess — the epithet "triple goddess" in the PGM is not a euphemistic name for a particular deity in the manner of Bona Dea (always capitalized), but an epithet in the manner of prayers or hymns. But what seems to be happening is that people are misinterpreting the meaning of these lists and associations, because they're not quite understanding naming practice in ancient magic and religion. I don't have my sources in the triple goddess notes yet; I've touched on naming practice in other articles, such as Gello, Abyzou, and indirectly Quintus Valerius Soranus, with further leads in footnotes 20, 26, and 39. The diva triformis seems to appear suddenly in Augustan Rome, also the triplicity of Diana Nemorensis; this evidently occurs in the context of Augustus's religious reforms and revivalism, but I haven't found an explanation from a secondary source. Haven't really looked, though. So based on primary sources one can only state for Wikipedia that the Augustan poets use certain epithets that mean "triple goddess". The epithet is placed in the mouth of Medea by more than one poet; again, a statement of fact, but nothing more can be said of the significance of this fact without a secondary source.

So I guess I'm saying that in my view, the key to using the primary sources is to be as precise as possible, make limited claims, and not cross into the territory of interpretation. With something as wacky as the PGM, your task is more difficult, because you have to understand what this text is, and what its modes of expression are (the absolute minimum is to have read Betz's introduction); unless you understand that the "Prayer to Selene" is a prayer, and what 'prayer' means in ancient magic, you won't be able to state accurately that "triple goddess" is an epithet. So summarizing content from either a primary or secondary source does require the editor to have sufficient background knowledge for understanding the subject; I wouldn't be able to pick up a scholarly article on nuclear physics and feel confident that I could summarize its content accurately in contributing to a Wikipedia article. This is just a difference between a general-knowledge article, like 'auto safety' or 'cheese', and an article on specialized topics such as 'apoptosis' or Rajatarangini, for which the attention of an expert is sought. Again, the controversial Triple Goddess is not the best place to talk about translation; people seem to be looking for evidence to support a POV, and not simply trying to describe the evidence pertaining to a triple goddess — which is why I was trying to advocate an approach to the Greek and Latin sources based on the analytical methods of philology, not the application of theory. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * «The diva triformis seems to appear suddenly in Augustan Rome,...» — Ermmm, that may be the case, but a more solidly grounded claim might be "Mention of the diva triformis is found, at the earliest, in documents from Augustan Rome." This allows for the possibility of earlier documents being lost, or earlier occurrence being unwritten-about, neither of which can be proven or disproven. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you can't say this in an article; my statement about the diva triformis was made in speculation on a talk page, and was not among those statements I said the primary texts could verify for inclusion in an article. Besides, I'm not talking about the existence of a cult or deity, as you seem to be; I'm talking about the use of a phrase, and when it first appears in a literary source. The primary sources only allow you to say "Latin poets refer to [the specified set of goddesses] with an epithet meaning 'triple goddess.'" If you want to be more specific, you can say "Augustan-era poets such as Horace and Ovid use an epithet meaning 'triple goddess' to refer to [specify deities], and such references are found in later Latin poetry as well." You should not make a claim of "earliest" at all, and then try to imply that there is some unknown tradition for which "we" merely lack the sources. I wasn't trying to make a "solidly grounded claim" about why this epithet seems to appear first in poets of the Augustan era; that is why I used the word "seem," and why I said I hadn't found any explanation of this in the secondary sources, and why I said (to quote myself): 'Based on primary sources one can only state for Wikipedia that the Augustan poets use certain epithets that mean "triple goddess".' You reveal your efforts to construct an argument by saying you're trying to frame the sentence so that it allows for the existence of unknown documents that would support the existence of a "triple goddess" as an entity. That is the work of secondary scholarship. The word "mention" in your sentence is imprecise and not a technical term of analyzing either poetry or prayer; you are trying to say that the poets "mention" a/the "triple goddess", and that is not what the sources do. Both the poets and the magic papyri use "triple goddess" as an epithet, a descriptive epithet, for Artemis/Diana, Selene/Luna, Hekate, and Persephone/Proserpina; they do NOT "mention" or "refer" to a "triple goddess" who exists as a discrete entity, as your sentence above implies. There is no way for you to proceed with any discussion of this topic that is not going to be ripped apart by other editors unless you grasp the distinction and handle it with care. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Late Antiquity?
Hi all, I am new here. I am wondering what the Wikipedia community thinks about the division from Cassical Antiquity to so-called Late Antiquity. Surely the fall of the Roman empire and the early Middle Ages would not be considered Classical. Also, I noticed that the Late Antiquity page is listed under WikiProject Greece (which is, at best, less than precise).

This effects all authors, historical events, and cultural developments during the later Roman period as well as the rise of Christianity as an intellectual and cultural system throughout the early Middle ages. Any thoughts on starting a WikiProject Late Antiquity so as to organize this vast amount of material in a better way? Or should authors like Plotinus, Augustine, Proclus, etc. be a part of WikiProject Middle Ages? Or are they (::shudder::) Classical? Jwhosler (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Has this been answered elsewhere? I would also like to know whether articles related to Late Antiquity are within the scope of this project. Pollinosisss (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ceto (mythology) and cetus (mythology)
I don't know when exactly it happened, but someone decided Ceto, the daughter of Gaia and Pontus (found in Hesiod's Theogony 270ff.), is the same as "Cetus", which is just the Greek noun for sea-monster or large fish. Apparently it has been deemed original research to say that they're different. Input welcome. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * More confusion: the articles are at Ceto and Cetus (mythology). Cetus is about the constellation. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps requesting a source that Phorcys married Cetus, [sic] as the second article asserts, will dispell this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman prosopography and disambiguation
I just started doing something thoughtlessly bold, and thought I should stop and bring it to the Project, even though I'm not a member.

I recently had a run-in with a disambiguation enforcer that left me frustrated. This involved the page Tiberius Claudius Nero; see discussion on its talk page. The suggestion was finally made by a reasonable third party that in order to properly disentangle the confusion of names (which had been my goal), a list article might be created instead.

As I thought about this, it seemed to me that the problem with some of these pages (disambig or list articles) is that they're really about Roman prosopography (a category that I'd like to add, if it makes sense to anyone); an excellent example of an article that would belong in such a category is Claudius (gens). Potentially, all these "list" articles (Lucius Valerius Flaccus also comes to mind) are articles like "Claudius (gens)." Not all would belong in the category "Roman gentes"; for example, the page I just diddled with, Domitia, deals with only the women of the gens. My diddling consisted of removing it from the disambig category, so I could add women not linked, and unlikely to have their own article because of the paucity of information, but worth a mention. I recategorized it under "Ancient Roman women." (One problem: there's a Saint Domitia, but she doesn't have her own article; maybe she could simply be removed to a stub.)

"Roman gentes" could be a subcategory of "Roman prosopography", which would be categorized under "Ancient Romans"? I"m asking. I'm not big on the proliferation of categories, but an article on the origin and continuity of the Tiberii Claudii Nerones would go under "Roman prosopography," and not "Roman gentes" per se.

There are a number of useful pages currently labeled "disambiguation" that pertain to Roman families and could be similarly eviscerated by a disambig zealot looking for busy work (sorry; let's just call this a conflict of two different "good faiths", but this editor wouldn't even let me say "is the name of several ancient Romans, including" — I was only allowed to say "TIberius Claudius Nero may refer to"). I don't see any purpose of labeling these overview, list-like articles as disambigs if it's going to make them targets and block their potential for developing along the lines of "Claudius (gens)." Cynwolfe (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Should I assume that no one has an opinion on this? If it's a bad idea to move this type of page from disambig, somebody should suggest that I not do it. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it at all a bad idea: try (as another example) searching for any, or all of the Decii - especially Publius Decius Mus... yes, which one? What if I don't know the consular year? Or which did what? And assume I've come across them as the Decii (which is exactly how I did come across them) and that my Latin's just about up to figuring the singular as Decius (...say no more). Go for it – though "Roman prosopography" might be considered an over-specialised term and I can't think of a simpler alternative. Haploidavey (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an awful word, isn't it? It took me forever to learn how to spell it. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I ended up doing. I see that others have addressed this problem in various ways, often by simply removing the disambig tag and recategorizing the page under "Ancient Roman families," "Ancient Roman cognomina", "Roman gentes" and such. In several cases, however, disambiguating information remained on the page; in these cases, I pulled out the links to spiders, butterflies, towns in Ohio and Iowa, blue-jean manufacturers, etc., and created a genuine disambig page for these; the disambig page adheres strictly to the limits set by disambig zealots and says "Such-and-such may refer to", with a line like "several ancient Romans; see" with a link to the Such-and-such page. For an example, see Dolabella (disambiguation). I kept under "See also" items that were directly related in meaning to the ancient Roman name; for instance, a political writer using the pen name "Brutus" as an allusion would be a "see also" at the end, though it might also appear on the disambig page.

I also found interesting things like disambig pages that were mainly on the gens, with hidden text pertaining to prosopography that presumably had been banished. After creating the disambig page, and freeing up the prosopog page, I allowed the text to be viewed. In a few cases, I created a prosopog page from text I found dumped exotically on a category page, presumably to avoid the disambig police.

Because most of these pages started (mostly by somebody else, only a few by me) as disambig pages or fugitive text, they lack sources. They are puppies waiting to be adopted. I hope some of these can be developed into fine articles of prosopography like Cornelius (gens).

I did create "Category:Prosopography of Ancient Rome" (this is a good place to go if you're looking for a family to adopt), and after adding 80 pages realized I had capitalized the A for no good reason. Don't know what to do about that. This category includes articles that deal with the following: gens names; cognomina that distinguish a branch; Roman naming conventions; political dynasties; family tree pages; individual names carried by multiple people (such as Lucius Valerius Flaccus, Tiberius Claudius Nero); gens names used for multiple women, such as the fine Julia Caesaris, Domitia, etc.; and the book Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. What I lack for the category at present is a main article to be titled "Prosopography of ancient Rome." I can't claim to have disentangled every single page dealing with a Roman name that was or is a disambig page and that still contains material that ought to be on a real disambig page. But this is what I've tried to do, and hope others will keep an eye out. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these efforts to promote the encyclopedia's treatment of Roman prosopography, which, as practiced in the Classical dictionaries & encyclopedias, is certainly a branch of knowledge that meets Wikipedia notability criteria, and which should therefore receive full treatment. I hope this will stick and only regret that it does not solve the problem of the "disambig police" removing mentions of persons in other subject areas.  Wareh (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hekate and Hekat
Some outside opinion on whether the goddess Hecate is ever called "Hekat" in English would be appreciated at Talk:Hecate. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, the claim now seems to be that 2 neopagan sources call the goddess "Hekat", so the lead must give this as an alternative form of her name. Input please? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * These arguments about relative weight of the evidence never turn out well. People who have the language skills, the scholarly method, and a veritable fleet of sources published by Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard UP still have to somehow "prove" how that outweighs the 97-page self-published pamphlets of Green Cheese Moon Press with colorful artwork from the side of a VW van. You are right, Akhilleus, that it is Hecate or Hekate in English, both trisyllabic, and the terminal eta can't be dropped — it is, after all, Athene or Athena, not Athen. There are many of us who wish you well. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Take it up with Shakespeare ("Hecat"). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are quite right there. Again it is a matter of making distinctions between what is correct modern orthography (and in this case also ancient), and an historical usage (in this case particular to the Elizabethan period, and perhaps elsewhere). But if I may be frank, Sizzle, I find your attitude very, uh, difficult. It's hard not to be provoked by it. Presumably we are all working toward the same goal of producing our best possible work. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Shakespeare's usage in "the Scottish play" (the only one in which that personage appears) is not insignificant; many players have spoken her name as "Hecat", and many more audience members have so heard it, besides all those readers who so saw it. This alone is not "never", and would justify its bare mention in a list of her names. That the Sabians (originally Greek) also thus rendered the name (according to Daniel Chwolson's 1856 Sabians and Sabianism p.284 "Hekat=Hekate"), and modern worshippers still do (Donna Wilshire's 1993 Virgin, Mother, Crone, e.g. p.165 "the temple of Hekat"; and Amber K's 2006 Ritualcraft, e.g. p.502 "Hekas, Hekat, Hekate!"), merely add a tiny bit of weight to that. The article did list the name in the lede, and Akhilleus removed it as (1st time) "I've never seen this" and (2nd time) "unsourced" — and, then after seeing examples and sources, deleted it a third time. The no-final-e usage had four sources cited, more than any other assertion in the article; yet it remains deleted, with accusations and threats made at me. And you find my attitude difficult? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Chwolson wrote in German, so he's not relevant for English usage; and we're arguing about Hecate's name(s) in English. And somehow, Sizzle, I don't think you can read German, because if you did, you would not claim that the Sabians rendered Hekate's name as "Hekat". If anyone is interested in this business, the place to discuss is Talk:Hecate! --Akhilleus (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither is the (undeleted) Ἑκάτη in English, but (like the Arabic lettering transliterated Hekat) was a historical rendering. You rejected modern English sources as ahistorical; when historical usages (Shakespeare and the Sabians) were offered, you rejected them as not modern English; apparently nothing will suffice but an ancient inscription in modern English. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, so you don't read German. You should stop claiming that "the Sabians" called her Hekat, then; they didn't. As for Ἑκάτη, of course it's not English, but since she was an ancient Greek goddess, the article provides her name in Greek (just as Artemis, Athena, and Hera do). --Akhilleus (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you wish to add "corruptly" to all the documented usages without "-e", well, you can argue that. But those usages remain documented. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And John Milton (1634), Comus, Act I, Scene 1, line 135: "Wherein thou ridest with Hecat...." And Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, Act III, Scene 2, line 21: "Pluto's blue fire and Hecat's tree".  And Ben Jonson's The Sad Shepherd, Act II, Scene 3, line 668: "our dame Hecat".  Cf. "Hecate (he'ket)" in Robert Blumenfeld (2002), Accents: a Manual for Actors (2002), page 47.  "Hecate likewise, pronounced in three syllables when in Latin, and in the same number in the Greek word Ἑκάτη, in English is universally contracted into two, by sinking the final e. Shakespeare seems to have begun, as he has now confirmed, this pronunciation, by so adapting the word in Macbeth.... And the play-going world, who form no small portion of what is called the better sort of people, have followed the actors in this word; and the rest of the world have followed them." — Rules for pronouncing the vowels of Greek and Latin proper names, p.9, in Noah Webster's 1866 Dictionary. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See also "triple Hecat" in Arthur Golding's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses, Book Seven, and in "Mr. Theobald" (Lewis)'s Orestes, Act III, and in William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act V, Scene 1, line 384: "By the triple Hecat's team".  Please won't someone cite a 97-page self-published pamphlet from Green Cheese Moon Press with colorful artwork from the side of a VW van, to prove somehow that these are not English-language usages? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ♫What, never? No, never! What, never? Well... hardly ever.... ♫ — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardly ever? Yes, on the evidence offered, all of which takes the argument beyond the boundaries of this Project. The examples offered above are a distinct speciality - Elizabethan and post-Elizabethan dramatic scansion, with Webster's 1866 pronunciation guide to back the claim that "...the play-going world, who form no small portion of what is called the better sort of people, have followed the actors in this word; and the rest of the world have followed them." Really? Do they follow in their hansom cabs? Or do they follow on their velocipedes even as we speak? Or must we really appeal to the Green Cheese Moon Press for an absence of negative evidence? I'm sorry, but even to me this is becoming absurd - and I've not even the vaguest expertise. Haploidavey (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, since one of the sources Sizzle cited above is self-published (Stephen Ronan's The Goddess Hekate is published by Chthonios Press, founded by Stephen Ronan), I'd say we already have our pamphlet from the Green Cheese Moon Press. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I got lost in all the bad sourcing--Sizzle has only cited Ronan at Talk:Hecate, not here. Sorry for the error, but come over to Talk:Hecate if you're hungry for some cheese. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Haploidavey, you will be happy to note that even the latest, up-to-date dictionaries list both the final-E and the no-final-E pronunciations: "Pronunciation: \ˈhe-kə-tē, ˈhe-kət\" — "Hecate" in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009. "(hĕk'ǝ-tē, hĕk'ĭt)" — "Hecate" in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000. "(hek′ə tē, hek′it)" - "Hecate" in Webster's New World College Dictionary (Wiley, 2005). And Merriam-Webster recordings with and without sounding the final E. Finding this absurd, and lack of expertise, may be effect and cause. Letting one's personal opinion trump the cited, standard, reliable sources is not how Wiki-editors are supposed to behave. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sizzle, I was actually hoping you'd find it somewhere, because until you did you were insistently speculating without evidence and at length - as a matter of personal opinion which trumped the cited, standard and reliable sources you had not yet found. That's what I found absurd - but no longer! You've taken responsibility for burden of proof and provided it - this is all anyone has been asking for. Simple. Despite my fessing up to its lack, my own editorial or subject expertise is not the issue here (nor, I should add, is anyone's). Personally, I think you've a lot to offer, and wish you well. (Addit: I see Akhilleus sees the issue as only partially resolved - I guess this will be achieved - or perhaps not - on the relevant talk-page through good-faith development and discussion based on what the sources actually say. And Sizzle, please don't forget that Wikipedia in its entirety is here to benefit all readers, most of them non-expert but many of them deeply interested and, on the whole, reasonably intelligent: you imply that my previous post obtusely denied the information you provided afterwards. Please don't do that.) Anyway, regards and good luck. Haploidavey (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not "speculating" on my part, Haploidavey. That'd be a strange speculation to make. I'd seen and heard the usage, as Akhilleus had not. I've been providing citations and links at Talk:Hecate, where the main debate is. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I see the citations and am familiar enough with the bi-syllabic forms. Unfortunately (or not), uncited knowledge outside the common sphere can be challenged as speculation and/or Original Research. Perhaps issues brought to the project page for discussion, clarification or resolution are best clarified and summarised here - complete in all essentials or with direct links to the material in question. Otherwise, what's brought to the table may be essentially incomplete. Discussions split between talk pages are generally difficult to manage; and the Hecate talk page is, um, particularly complex and disputatious. Is it possible just to let this one go for a while? After all, leads/ledes are difficult at the best of times. I suspect that this one can only be written satisfactorily when the article is complete: and I stand by my previous opinion that the dispute now exceeds the project's boundaries. Also unfortunately, our mutual replies have broken the original sequence. Cynwolfe's (below) is a response to mine (above). Haploidavey (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Post-classical issues may exceed WP:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome's boundaries. However, Hecate is also overseen by WP:WikiProject Mythology (among others), and mythology is not so date-delimited. Akhilleus chose to forum-shop this issue here instead of there. Apparently on the same basis, any reference to neopagan worship/spelling/pronunciation of Hecate also gets deleted from that article, even though (or because) it's clearly a "current usage". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to this on the article talk-page, sooner or later. Haploidavey (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Amen. I too was convinced by Sizzle's meticulous amassing of the Elizabethan primary sources, and of secondary sources aimed at elucidating Elizabethan scansion. However, there's that problem of attitude. Anyone who knows Haploidavey's work can see that he is committed to high standards, but unfailingly courteous and respectful — and also kind enough to notice others' efforts and to take the trouble to let them know it. On talk pages we can have a bit of fun with our rhetorical flourishes to the point of vehemence. But Sizzle: you seem hell-bent on alienating even fellow editors who find value in your contributions. The potential allies, in other words, who would grant consensus to your points. You don't seem to assume community of purpose (aka 'good faith'). You may feel rightly or wrongly that you're being picked on at any given time, but that doesn't mean that everybody who questions you is your adversary. (BTW, I never connected you to my VW van above; you assumed it applied to you, and put yourself in the driver's seat.) Here's an example of an unduly adversarial stance: above, you legitimately adduced the evidence of Shakespeare. It would've been sufficient to say "Shakespeare uses the form Hecat (two syllables) at ... " etc. Instead, you said "Take it up with Shakespeare." That is the language of picking fights: "Take it outside, boys" is something Miss Kitty would say to get the drunken cowboys out of her saloon. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

'(hĕk'ǝ-tē, hĕk'ĭt)' — 'Hecate' in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000. 'Hecate..., pronounced in three syllables when in Latin, and in the same number in the Greek word Ἑκάτη, in English is universally contracted into two, by sinking the final e. Shakespeare seems to have begun, as he has now confirmed, this pronunciation, by so adapting the word in Macbeth.... And the play-going world, who form no small portion of what is called the better sort of people, have followed the actors in this word; and the rest of the world have followed them.' — Noah Webster (1866), A Dictionary of the English Language (10th edition), 'Rules for pronouncing the vowels of Greek and Latin proper names', p.9." As noted above, even these footnotes were deleted. Ironic, in that the first deletions from the lede text were for "I've never seen this" and "unsourced", which meant footnotes were required for lede text; then the footnotes when given were deleted as "cluttering" the lede, which means lede text mustn't be footnoted. Meanwhile, seven other footnotes in the lede were left untouched. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * «I never connected you to my VW van above» — DPOMLATMIR. You used that metaphor for poor scholarship (vs "a veritable fleet of sources published by Oxford" et al.) when claiming "the terminal eta can't be dropped". I've provided the veritable fleet of sources showing that the terminal eta can be and has been dropped by notable English writers like Shakespeare and Milton, with comment from Noah Webster on the widespread pronunciation. So who has the VW van? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, he still hasn't shown that Hekat is a common spelling in contemporary English, just that hĕk'ĭt is given as a pronunciation. So quite a bit of this still remains absurd. I would point out, though, that Sizzle will find a lot less resistance if he uses standard, reliable sources instead of obscure 19th century German texts. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I started with contemporary English texts; you rejected them as "telling us nothing" about historical usage. So then I provided you historical texts; you rejected them as irrelevant to current usage. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a question of scholarly method. I think the history of the scholarship, particularly on an antiquarian topic, is legitimate — if it's understood that you're recording the history of how the topic has been discussed, and not synthesizing proclamations toward Eternal Truth. In my view, where Sizzle goes astray is to extrapolate too broadly from the specifics ("in the Elizabethan period, the name was regularly scanned as disyllabic and represented without the final -e" — this appears incontrovertible at this point) to generalization (larger claims about the prevalence of the disyllabic form). These debates can usually be settled through making modest, precise claims. I understand the frustration of Akhilleus and the emotions that creep in (he did, after all, choose the name Akhilleus, so a certain amount of menis is to be expected), but … take it outside, boys. Or at least maintain some sense of humor. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * «This is a question of scholarly method.» — I had thought so, which is why I kept bringing forward sources; but that was met with insults, mockery, accusations, and threats, as wiki-editors insisted on trumping the cited sources with their own opinions, and the cited-sources-footnotes kept being deleted. Hardly a scholarly proceeding. «in the Elizabethan period» — 1731 is Georgian; 1866 is Victorian. (Not quibbling about "Elizabethan" vs. "Jacobean".)  «modest, precise claims» — The "claims" (which I believe to have been both modest and precise) were merely:"Hecate, Hekate, or Hecat [1] (, [2]"The most recently deleted footnotes were:"1. 'Hecat' without final E, e.g. in William Shakespeare (ca.1603-07), (Macbeth, Act III, Scene 5): 'Why, how now, Hecat!', and (ca.1594-96) A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act V, Scene 1, line 384: 'By the triple Hecat's team'; and in John Milton (1634), Comus, Act I, Scene 1, line 135: 'Wherein thou ridest with Hecat...'; and in Christopher Marlowe (first published 1604; performed earlier), Doctor Faustus, Act III, Scene 2, line 21: 'Pluto's blue fire and Hecat's tree'; and in Ben Jonson, The Sad Shepherd, Act II, Scene 3, line 668: 'our dame Hecat'. See 'triple Hecat' also in Arthur Golding (trans.) (1567), Ovid's Metamorphoses, Book Seven, and in 'Mr. Theobald' (Lewis) (1731), Orestes, Act III.  2. 'Pronunciation: \ˈhe-kə-tē, ˈhe-kət\' — 'Hecate' in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009.

You still haven't noticed that I'm agreeing with you. Marlowe, Shakespeare, Golding, Jonson, of a piece poetically; later Milton; and the 19th century sources that take note of ELizabethan-Jacobean prosodic practices … yes, this seems clear. (Though again, why claim that Shakespeare initiated the disyllabic form? How do you know? Why not just say the form is attested in major authors of the period? Why go the debatable step too far?) And why is this discussion on the Project page instead of the article's talk page? Cynwolfe (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * «why claim that Shakespeare initiated the disyllabic form? How do you know?» — I'm not making any such claim; on the contrary, I've listed Golding's usage from 1567, when Shakespeare was around three years old. Noah Webster said "Shakespeare seems to have begun, as he has now confirmed, this pronunciation" — so Webster may not have read Golding's translation of Metamorphoses (by then later translations, like John Dryden, et al, 1717, were available); or perhaps he may have meant only that Shakespeare's plays (being widely heard by audiences) had more influence than poetry (being only read). «why is this discussion on the Project page instead of the article's talk page?» — It started on the article's talk page. Scroll up to the first entry in this section, and you'll see that it was by Akhilleus. My first comments here were (1) in reply to Akhilleus, and (2) in reply to your comment made here instead of there. So ask yourself why you commented here instead of there. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Again the belligerent personal tone: "ask yourself". I'm well aware that Golding predates Shakespeare, who used Golding's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses. I don't care at the moment whether it's you or Akhilleus who's right. But Akhilleus is the more courteous combatant. Bringing the discussion to this page was meant to address the overall framework, not the details, of the dispute. You seem, Sizzle, to want something more from your fellow editors than the acknowledgement that "you are correct," which Haploidavey and I have both said. We agree with you, and then you bitch-slap us because we haven't parsed our words exactly as you would have us to. It is, after all, a talk page, and not the text of the article. And we are making no claims to have thought this through to the extent that you and Akhilleus have. We're simply trying to tame the process. (Not to speak for Haploidavey, but he stepped in above to calm the waters, it seemed to me, and I had thought that would be the end of it.) I admit I've become fascinated by what it is you so humorlessly and aggressively want from us. I respect your research; I simply think you sometimes make intuitive leaps that may be insightful but unverifiable by Wikipedia standards. I know it can be very frustrating to "know" something, and not be able to present and share it because of verifiability issues. I sympathize with both of you, but I think the matter can be resolved more efficiently if the chip comes off the shoulder. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How is "ask yourself" belligerent? You demanded from me an explanation of why discussion was here rather than there, even though I didn't bring it here, and only responded to your and Akhilleus's comments made here after the announcement that the debate was there. I think it's reasonable to suggest you ask the original commenter, not the respondent, about the choice of venue. «more courteous combatant» — More courteous to you than he has been to me; but your own courtesy was lacking in your very first comment here, not merely telling Akhilleus that he was right but using an insulting metaphor for the other side of the argument (mine); having begun with insult and mockery here, you have little standing to complain of "attitude" or "courtesy" now.  «We agree with you, and then you bitch-slap us» — You accuse me of a false claim I never made, then ask me, "How do you know? ... Why go the debatable step too far?" That's a straw-man argument, and you get called on it.  «humorlessly» — My first comment here was a bit of Gilbert & Sullivan, accusing no-one, degrading no-one, a light response to the firmness of "never". My second comment, in reply to your own mistaken certitude (and "VW van"), suggested you "take it up with Shakespeare" (with a linked passage) — and to that you replied that my attitude is "difficult".  «aggressively» — What, you think I challenged you to duke it out wit' ma homey, Will the Shakes? Tend to your own humor deficiency, Cynwolfe. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for offending you. My initial comment to Akhilleus was a generalization about two kinds of argumentation, and was not directed at you as an individual. I think I've been pretty clear when I've addressed a criticism to you directly. I sincerely thought you seemed unaware that your argument had garnered support, and perhaps unaware also that your rhetorical tactics made it difficult for others to help secure the consensus you sought. Again, I apologize for my lapses in decorum, because these are unhelpful. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accepted, and thank you. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

At some point, perhaps we can realize that this dispute started over how Hecate's name should be represented in the lead sentence. It then shifted to a dispute over how her name and the name's pronunciation should be represented in the lead sentence. Part of this was easily settled when Sizzle gave evidence that there are two current pronunciations, citing three current English dictionaries. However, Elizabethan spelling is not current English. If someone wants to write a section of the article that covers Hecate's portrayal in Elizabethan literature, which might include the fact that her name was variously given as Heccat, Heccate, Hekat, and Hecate (and perhaps others, since Elizabethan spelling wasn't standardized), be my guest. But Elizabethan usage isn't current English, and shouldn't determine what we see ''in the lead sentence." --Akhilleus (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Righto. Thanks for the reminder. I'll put in my utterly disinterested and usefully ignorant tuppence-worth on the article talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Akhilleus, current writers' usage was provided, and you deleted it as irrelevant to historical usage; then historical writers' usage was provided, and you deleted that as irrelevant to current usage. You shift from foot to foot, each time deleting what you yourself demanded in the previous round of discussion. This is a recurrent pattern with you, in more than one topic: you delete text as unsourced, then delete the sources when provided; demand different sources, then delete them too. After a while, the assumption of good faith gets stretched past its limits. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sizzle, you know quite well--because I've said it many times, including above--that I don't regard the modern sources you presented as good evidence for what Hecate is called in modern English. At best, they demonstrate that a small number of people sometimes call her Hekat in current usage; but the usage of a tiny minority should not determine what details are shown in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hecate today is worshipped by a tiny minority of people, true. But it is significant to the history of Hecate that she still has worshippers. And that makes relevant how they — as opposed to the billions who don't worship her — address her in their rites. Otherwise, by your argument, no article on the God of the Jews (YHVH/Adonoi/Tetragrammaton/G-d/etc.) should mention any of the ways that current Jews refer to him, because of course Jews are also a tiny minority. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just discuss the Hekat variant in a footnote and get on with your lives. The name of the goddess in question is today rendered as Hecate or Hekate. This huffing and puffing about the name Hekat is rather difficult to make sense of. For all the clutter and tit-for-tat editing that seems to be going on, what's really happening is that the article is being chopped up by pedants who are more interested in editing nice little features (I mean "nice" in the Elizabethan sense, by the way) than in contributing in ways that matter. While editing, polishing and formatting are necessary and appreciated, I have to say I'm less than impressed by the work of editors who come and hack things up that others went to a great deal of trouble to assemble. The concerned parties should caress their wounded online personae and just kiss and make up. This is a waste of everybody's time. --Picatrix (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * «The name of the goddess in question is today rendered as Hecate or Hekate.» — This is true as far as it goes — just as it is true that the word "recognise" is spelled with an S — but it is not the whole truth. The word "recognize" with a Z also occurs; the pronunciation and spelling of the goddess's name without the final E also occur. Shakespeare's plays are still performed and heard (and reprinted and read); neopagan rituals are still performed and heard (and printed and read). Why deny that? This may not merit discussion in lede main text — but why keep deleting it even from footnotes? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of wastes of time:. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, with this edit I've put four simple sentences into a new section (not the lede):"Spellings and pronunciations In current standard usage, Hecate (the Latin spelling) or Hekate (as transliterated from Greek) is most often pronounced /'hɛkə-tiː/, though sometimes /'hɛk-ət/.[7] Arthur Golding's 1567 translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses refers to 'triple Hecat' (/'hɛk-ət/),[8] and this spelling without the final E later appears in plays of the Elizabethan-Jacobean period.[9] Noah Webster in 1866 particularly credits the influence of Shakespeare for the then-predominant pronunciation of 'Hecate' without the final E.[10]  Some neopagan worshippers of the goddess pronounce the name as /'hɛkə-teɪ/, /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/, or /'hɛk-ət/,[11] the last sometimes spelled Hekat.[12]"(wikilinks not shown) ... and accordingly removed pronunciations from the lede. Akhilleus, since your concern was solely that this didn't belong in the lede, I trust that this time you will leave it undeleted. Thank you. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, Akhilleus deleted even that. Before, he merely wanted it out of the lede; now he wants to keep it out of the article altogether. "If someone wants to write a section of the article that covers Hecate's portrayal in Elizabethan literature, which might include the fact that her name was variously given as Heccat, Heccate, Hekat, and Hecate (and perhaps others, since Elizabethan spelling wasn't standardized), be my guest. But Elizabethan usage isn't current English, and shouldn't determine what we see in the lead sentence." --Akhilleus, 03:06, 18 October 2009, above. Having invited a separate section to be written (as long as it wasn't in the lede), now he deletes it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note this edit comment "(rv. no consensus to include this material)", and see Don't revert due to "no consensus". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note the extensive discussion of my removal on the talk page. Or don't, since this is long past WP:TLDR and WP:LAME. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Now Akhilleus's complaint is that "by breaking this out into a separate section, the article gives undue weight: — easily solved. Now combined with the previous section, "Name and etymology". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)