Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Project overviewTasksCurationGuidesAwardsOur classicistsTalk page

Help with a Stand Alone List Going Live on Thursday

Can you review a Stand Alone List for me that is being developed as a WikiEdu class project? It's on archaeologically attested women from antiquity (none of whom have a presence on Wikipedia, although presumably that could change). I've done several drafts of the intro following the guidance of a Wiki editor and WikiEdu staff. One ancient woman has been added to the list as an example, the other women will be added to the holding places by the students on Thursday during a group editing/posting session.

Can you give it a look and give feedback? I'm particularly hoping to avoid the entire list being rejected immediately and all the students' efforts being for naught.

List of Archaeologically Attested Women from the Mediterranean Region

--EtruscanMayhem (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, I can see a few issues that might come up in review. I won't be involved in the decision to accept or reject it, it that helps. I'm also curious as to who the students are—not individually, but at what educational level? I would hold college students to a higher standard than high school or junior high school students. But that's beside the point, I suppose, because in order to get the article accepted, there are things that have to be addressed, no matter what grade level the students who produced it. Issues that I see:

1. Are being "archaeologically attested" and from the Mediterranean region a valid intersection of categories? The Mediterranean is a pretty vast area, and it's not clear why the three ethnic/cultural groupings belong together: Assyrian, Greek, and Roman. It would be easier to see the intersection between Greek and Roman women, but including them in the same category with Assyrian women seems like a stretch. If Assyrian women are included, what about Babylonians, Hittites, Canaanites, Hebrews, Philistines, Phoenicians, Egyptians, etc.? Is there a reason for including Assyrians specifically?
2. If "archaeologically attested" includes women known from epigraphy, then there are thousands of Roman women known exclusively from inscriptions—though a few of them may or may not count as being "from the Mediterranean region"; are all Roman women included because Rome is a Mediterranean culture? If Assyrian women count, then maybe all Romans should too—and probably a lot of Greek women as well. I don't know how much epigraphy relating to otherwise un-notable individuals there is from Assyria. But for the Greek and Roman categories, there are presumably more women who are "archaeologically attested" than could comfortably fit in one article, much less a combined list of all Greek and Roman women known from archaeological sources. It's true that the list currently has just a few entries, but lists on Wikipedia should anticipate the possibility of being expanded based on the scope of their contents, and it would be problematic if we had a short list of persons that suggested that it's all, or even most of the persons in the category who are known to scholarship.
3. Only one of the entries so far has any biographical information or sources. Without anything further, all we know is that "there was a Greek/Roman/Assyrian woman by this name", and even that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability without any kind of source. Facts asserted on Wikipedia should always be cited to a reliable source. Many aren't, and get deleted for this reason. Without sources, all but one of the entries is liable to be deleted by any editor who comes along and doesn't feel like looking for a source. More helpful editors might look for sources instead of deleting them, but of course that might be something your class should have the chance to do first. Fortunately, it's not necessary for each of the women to be individually notable. But there should at least be some identifying information, such as, "known from an inscription at Smyrna".
4. I can say with certainty that there were countless Roman women named "Maxima", which would make verifying an entry with no further identifying information impossible. Meanwhile, there were probably many women named "Phryne", but it's a Greek name, and by far the most famous person by the name was a wealthy Greek courtesan accused of impiety, who was acquitted by a jury after displaying her magnificent bosom to them (technically, "Phryne" was only her nickname, but there were probably lots of women called "Phryne" for various reasons, and most of them would have been Greek). Presumably the "archaeologically attested" one is somebody else, but without any further information, the reader won't know.

I hope this isn't just pouring cold water on the project. Some of these are curable issues. Others may require re-examining the scope of the list. I can't say whether any one of these will or won't be a roadblock to getting it accepted, but all of them could be, and there may be other issues that I didn't think of. Good luck with the project, though! P Aculeius (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with P Aculeius: the scope of this list looks way too broad to me. If you are committed to creating a list of ancient women, neither List of ancient Greek women nor List of ancient Roman women currently exist, though List of ancient Romans and List of ancient Greeks both do. If you were to make such lists which were limited to only entries which already have an English Wikipedia article, I think it would be much easier for you to make the case for inclusion. (Similarly, I would presume that a case could be made for lists of women from other ancient cultures, though I am in less of a position to comment usefully on those!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

(For the sake of completeness, I will note that we do have list of ancient Macedonians in epigraphy, which is perhaps a closer parallel to what EtruscanMayhem is suggesting. That looks to me like a case study in what not to do, though: it's linked to from three mainspace articles, averages two page views a day (which admittedly is two more than I expected!) and hasn't had a substantive content change since 2009, less than two weeks after it was created. The best which can be said about that article is that nobody cares.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There are some Wiki lists of ancient Roman women, and here's one of the lists THIS list is responding to: List of distinguished Roman women. Most of the women on the list are either elite women described in literary texts written by male authors, or are literary/mythical constructs. In other words, that list doesn't tell us much about real historical women at all.

Another list of note is List of prostitutes and courtesans of antiquity, which has a regionally wide scope. A great list, but again, these are women who we only know about because they are described in literary texts almost entirely written by male authors.

The point of the list is to fill in Wikipedia content gaps (in keeping with Projects like Women's History), and since many well known and/or interesting women discussed in the scholarship have no presence on Wikipedia whatsoever, this list is meant to address that content gap. Some archaeologically attested women DO have Wikipedia pages, such as Claudia Severa and Enheduanna, and they would be appropriate for this list as it is imagined.

Moreover, these are all 'real' women who we can study archaeologically, not simply through biased literary texts.

EtruscanMayhem (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, besides funerary inscriptions there will be relatively little written about what you refer to as "real" women—and very little in funerary inscriptions, apart from the names of their relatives, whether they were freedwomen, and sometimes how old they were or how long they were married. Details beyond that will occur almost exclusively in literary sources—though for most, literary mentions provide few details beyond what would go in a funerary inscription.

I'll add, virtually all epigraphic details will also have been carved by men, although some of them may have been at the direction of women who paid for them to be carved, but at best we can only infer this in some cases. So this list will in no way address the complaint about authors being male; even if a percentage of inscriptions were carved at the direction of women, they don't differ significantly in content or tone from those carved at the direction of men. To the extent that literary sources reflect a "male" perspective of women, that can't really be "corrected" by using epigraphic sources.

If there are additional details to be gleaned from archaeological materials, the list fails to address such content gaps unless it provides those details, which as of yesterday were only provided for one person. Without anything else, it's just a list of names.

The reason why many of these "real" women have "no presence on Wikipedia" is that individuals generally have to be notable to have an article about them; and persons known exclusively from epigraphic sources are rarely notable, whether they are men or women. This necessarily means that individual notability is largely dependent on literary sources, not because there were no other notable persons, but because epigraphic sources rarely provide enough information about anyone to establish notability or justify a biographical article.

For instance, the Fasti Ostienses record the names of hundreds of men who rose to the top of the Roman aristocracy, held consulships and probably were regional governors with long and distinguished careers prior to that. But many of them are not known from any other sources, and so even though they were "elite", their careers are largely unknown, and so they appear only in lists that have nothing further to say than that "Gaius Bolonius Maximus was consul some time during the reign of Antoninus Pius, possibly around AD 145".

There are exceptions, however. If you browse through the List of Roman gentes, you'll find many articles that list individual men and women known exclusively from epigraphic sources. Most of these will be articles about minor gentes, with fewer than a hundred known members; it would be impractical to include everyone known from epigraphy in articles about major families, like the Julii or the Valerii. But since you're trying to avoid describing "elite" women, you can certainly find a large number of "real" women in them, each of whom is cited to an epigraphic source (the ones from the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum and L'Année épigraphique are linked to a database that will provide parallel citations and other sources, sometimes even a picture of the inscription).

Starting at the very top of the list, I see eight women known from the epigraphy of the Abudia gens, none of whom seems to belong to the "elite". Eight more examples are found at Accia gens, two at Accoleia gens, six at Acerronia gens (plus one who certainly was "elite"), thirty-six at Acutia gens, not counting the aunt of Aulus Vitellius. So "non-elite" women known from archaeology do have a presence on Wikipedia, although in most instances the information known about them is quite limited. P Aculeius (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I disagree with you on so many points that I can't even begin to respond. I'd have to defend the entire field of archaeology and what it tells us about ancient women, and I just...can't.

You said: "The reason why many of these "real" women have "no presence on Wikipedia" is that individuals generally have to be notable to have an article about them; and persons known exclusively from epigraphic sources are rarely notable, whether they are men or women."

It almost sounds like you're saying all notable women already have articles about them, and that 'real' women aren't notable, including if they have detailed funerary inscriptions, votive inscriptions, monument inscriptions, etc.?

You said: "This necessarily means that individual notability is largely dependent on literary sources, not because there were no other notable persons, but because epigraphic sources rarely provide enough information about anyone to establish notability or justify a biographical article."

It also sounds like you are saying that to meet Wiki notability requirements, a person had to be 'notable' in antiquity, in literary texts. Because an archaeologically attested woman who has many modern scholarly articles about her, or who is referenced in many scholarly books, doesn't meet your understanding of notable?

Perhaps I misunderstand, but this demonstrates why a List demonstrating the notability of archaeologically attested women is necessary.

Since the List is currently in a draft state, it's likely not possible to convince anyone. Mostly I was hoping for general feedback on the List viability given the parameters described in the Intro. EtruscanMayhem (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Your response suggests that you think I'm dismissing women from antiquity as unimportant, when in fact I'm simply explaining why most women from antiquity about whom a significant amount is known are known from literary, rather than archaeological sources. But the post above, in contrasting "real" women versus "elite" women, suggests that the women who are known from literary sources are not "real", and somehow less deserving of study—and that this is even more so due to the fact that what was written about them was nearly always written by men, and therefore "biased". I don't see how this is a productive line of discussion.

There is no doubt that the literary record is written from the perspective of men, and that many (though certainly not all) men regarded women as of little importance in civic or social life. Of course this has to do with what men regarded as worthy of discussing—especially politics and war, fields from which women were typically excluded. That this represents a bias in terms of what and who they wrote about cannot be denied.

But the main reason that Wikipedia doesn't have a lot of material on persons not mentioned in historical sources—that is, those who appear primarily in archaeological publications—is because most of our material is biographical, and biography usually requires literary sources. This does not mean that no other women were notable; but if we don't have any information beyond their names and some personal details—was related to the following people, was buried with gold jewelry or other grave goods—then we don't have much to establish notability. You might want to review what constitutes notability for Wikipedia.

Of course, the same criteria for individual notability don't apply to stand-alone lists such as the one you're working on, but they do explain why we don't have much material on persons—men or women—known only from archaeological materials, which was a criticism of Wikipedia's coverage; not so much the result of bias in the encyclopedia as a consequence of the criteria used to justify stand-alone articles, which most people work on rather than lists. And you do not need to limit this list to women who are "notable" by any criteria, although that would be one means of limiting its scope, and thus potential size. I certainly wasn't arguing that "all notable women already have articles about them". As with men, there are many more notable persons in history—men and women—than we have sufficient material to write articles about. P Aculeius (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Hmmm, dubious. I don't really see why inscriptions on graves, statues etc, which must represent a pretty high proportion of "archaeologically attested women", are less "biased" than literary mentions, being mostly subject to COI, plus they are surely equally subject to the taint of male authorship. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I can accept that point, though in many preserved cases, women paid for funerary inscriptions for themselves or their loved ones, and clearly say so in the inscription. EtruscanMayhem (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The students are college level. Here is the WikiEdu course: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/The_Ohio_State_University/Classical_Archaeology_(Spring_2024)

3 and 4: Phryne and the other women have not been filled in yet because the students will be posting their entries tomorrow when the list goes live. Currently those names are acting as place-holders until then.

2: While there are indeed huge numbers of Roman women attested epigraphically, it would make sense for them to meet Wiki Bio notability requirements to be on the List. Many ancient women attested epigraphically would not qualify. The same could be said of burials of women, as there are tens of thousands. The Rich Athenian Lady, though is absolutely huge in the scholarship, and the Royal Sister from Mycenae has been garnering lots of attention since her aDNA tests (only briefly mentioned in the Grave Circle, B Wiki article). These both easily meet notability standards. Would it makes better sense to frame the List as a list of archaeologically-attested women who meet notability standards, since Lists don't typically require it of all List entries? (All of the women on the List at the moment DO meet notability standards, though you can't see that yet.)

The List has only 15 names at the moment because I only had so many students in the class. Not only might other people add to the list, but next semester's students would have more entries. The Assyrian women are included because a) the Assyrian women from Kanesh have been receiving a lot of attention lately in scholarship/popular media, and b) because from a practical standpoint, we had a day on them in my class and so students were assigned them.

1: As noted in the third paragraph of the List intro, for years now women of various Mediterranean cultures have been studied together in groups because of the direction of area-studies. The bibliographic sources listed in the citations there all do that.

--- If you look at the table of contents or scan the articles in Budin & Macintosh Turfa, you see that topics include Women from Mesopotamia (including Akkad, Ur III, Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Elamite, etc.), Egypt, Hittites, Levant & Carthage, Bronze Age Aegean, Etruria, Greece, Rome, Celtic regions, Scythians (Amazons), etc.

--- Carney & Müller's Companion to Women & Monarchy, you see Egypt & the Nile, the Near East (including Hasmoneans and Sassanids), Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans.

--- Middleton's book includes women from Mari (on the Euphrates), Egypt, Hittites, Bronze Age Aegean, Greece, Etruria, Rome.

In other words, the List's geographical span is entirely in keeping with scholarship on women in the region and these cultural groups can be documented together in multiple scholarly works. The question is whether that is not enough? My understanding was that Wikipedia summarizes works of historians and scholars (when an approach is generally accepted by the related disciplines), and the List we're creating follows these usual groupings. Do you think it matters if I more explicitly cite the standard regional cultural groupings that I note above?

EtruscanMayhem (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It's reassuring that you'll apply a notability criterion, making the whole thing much more manageable and meaningful. I'm currently enjoying Emma Southon's latest; may I offer some women from that who may be edge cases that usefully test your other criteria? Sulpicia Lepidina and Claudia Severa are known only from their letters found at Vindolanda, which would really stretch "ancient Mediterranean and adjacent areas". Julia Balbilla's poetry has not, I think, needed excavation; can she still be included as archaeologically attested? NebY (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Julia Balbilla's poem on the Colossos of Memnon is amazing! She would definitely qualify.

EtruscanMayhem (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh good! And now I see you mentioned Claudia Severa already; still an awful long way from the Mediterranean. NebY (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

True, but she's part of the Roman empire and is a Roman woman. EtruscanMayhem (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that requiring additions to the list meet notability requirements is not enough, given the response above.

If pivoting from List to Stubs creation seems more viable, I can go that route. I don't want the students' work to be rejected because the List itself is rejected. The creation of 10-15 stubs is perfectly acceptable as a goal for filling content gaps, though the idea had been for them to be grouped together in a List for easy access by readers. EtruscanMayhem (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Err, why not both? The stubs would provide healthy blue links in a list. (They could also be grouped by Wikipedia:Categorization, but I suspect most readers ignore that.) NebY (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Individuals do not need to be notable for a list like this, but you probably do want some sort of selection criteria that other editors can use to figure out who does and doesn't belong. Otherwise any woman known to have lived in any culture bordering on the Mediterranean at any point in its existence could be added—and there are thousands known from archaeological sources, if we count epigraphy. Notability is just one possible criterion you could use. P Aculeius (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

A criteria could be that the woman also be mentioned in non-archeological writing.★Trekker (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. The students felt that our best bet was to post the list and see what happens. I tried to incorporate a few of your suggestions in the hope that it will make the list stronger. @NebY @Caeciliusinhorto@Johnbod@P Aculeius@StarTrekker EtruscanMayhem (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Common name for Sulla's opponents during the civil war

There is no common name on Wikipedia and in academic sources for the opponents of Sulla during the civil war of 83-82 BC. The main problem is that his two enemies, Marius and Cinna, died before the war (in 86 and 84 BC), but the faction opposing Sulla was still called after them several years after their death. For the sake of consistency on WP, there should be only one name, I think. The names that occur in reliable sources are:

• Cinno-Marian(s)

• Cinnan-Marian(s)

• Cinnan(s)

• Marian(s)

• Marianist(s)

• Carbo's faction, after the name of Gnaeus Papirius Carbo, who dominated the years of the civil war. This name would actually be the most logical, but it's also the least common.

Perhaps, I have missed some. T8612 (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that we should pick one. I don't think "Marianists" is at all common in the English literature but the others I have seen. As to the topic itself, I find it rather amusing that it seems that some (OCD Online) have decided to sidestep the issue by never referring to Sulla's enemies with any such label: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.1878. Ifly6 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I've seen "Marian party" or perhaps "Marians", but don't recognize any of the others. Some of them look like hypercorrect neologisms. Maybe they're not, but I've never seen any of the ones beginning with any form of Cinna's name. I certainly wouldn't want to stop people from using "Marian foo/Marians", since at least I would recognize those and know what they mean. I doubt anyone who would recognize any of the others would be confused by those. P Aculeius (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Doing a few searches of the Historia Jstor archive, "Cinno-Marian" gets 1 result, "Cinnan-Marian" gets no results, Cinnan gets 14 (+1 plural) results, Marian gets 60 (+22 plural) results but many of these results relate to Marian reforms and pick up authors like the scholar named Marian Helm, Marianist gets 0 results. Carbo is mostly usages of the name and "Carbonian" has 0 results. I think I would go with Cinnan; Marian is too ambiguous, would require substantial untangling of search results to get right, and somewhat nonsensical regardless. Ifly6 (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Scullard (From the Gracchi to Nero, 1963) has no such term until in 82, "the Marian cause" and "a few 'Marian' governors" (Scullard's single-quotes). NebY (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It does feel as if the most used options are Cinnan and Marian. We probably ought to pick between the two. I prefer Cinnan since it makes (1) more sense and (2) is used in Latin form already with Cinnanum tempus. Ifly6 (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Polis (board game)

New article of mine. Perhaps someone would like to add more sources, an image, or perhaps there is a Greek Wikipedia interwiki to add? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Andromeda (mythology) image deletion discussion

There is an image deletion discussion about the file "Clash of the Titans poster" in use at Andromeda (mythology). It demonstrates that the myth remains current, and that misinterpretation of the black princess of Aethiopia as a white woman is also continuing, a matter of misogynistic racism in the eyes of some of the cited scholars. Project members are invited to contribute their opinions to the discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Trajan's mother

An IP editor on Wikidata has added a different mother for Trajan named Aureliana. The sources for this supposed person seem to be from Medieval Spanish sources, while the supposed mother Marcia who is mainly accepted by modern scholars (as far as I know) is based mainly on the name of Trajan's sister. My question here is if there is any credibility to support the idea of "Aureliana"? Right now the Spanish language article for Trajan seems to portray that Aureliana is correct, which I'm sceptical of. ★Trekker (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The Spanish article suggests Aureliana at one point, but a couple of paragraphs down suggests Marcia or Ulpia with no mention of Aureliana as a possibility, and in the infobox says Marcia. None of the sources they cite for Aureliana seem to be modern scholarly sources, and from searching Google Scholar it is easy to find sources calling Trajan's mother Marcia, or saying that she was probably called Marcia, but I cannot find any scholarly sources supporting Aureliana. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The text in the article should reflect the consensus of reliable sources: if modern scholars heed this mediaeval Spanish source, then it should be dispensed with. At most, a comment should be added saying that some other source says that in the body text; if there are explicit comments that this source is unreliable it should be noted. Ifly6 (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There's an endless swath of claims that medieval literature has claimed particularly about the Roman past. If modern scholarship does not attest to it, or even highlight that medieval source's usage of it, it should not be reflected there. At most, this seems to be a matter only of historiographical interest. Sleath56 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Medieval treatments of figures from Roman history are still relevant, even when they can be shown to be historically inaccurate. So are modern ones, though of course here we have to be much more selective due to the number of treatments, many of which aren't necessarily notable. P Aculeius (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with that in spirit, there is a distinct difference between this and more well attested naming discrepancies like that of Tacitus' praenomen which should be remarked upon. Though entries there are not generally discriminating, I'd say a single offhand reference by a medieval source does not credibly qualify this alternate name for inclusion. Sleath56 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that other sources follow it demonstrates why it should be mentioned: people will run across it and wonder why it says something different from modern sources. Having it in the article explains that a medieval source gives a different name—what that source is, whether it has any credibility, what basis there might have been for it, and whether modern scholars have anything to say about it. Failing to mention such materials leaves readers in the dark about an aspect of the topic that they might find confusing. P Aculeius (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I came across this very interesting writing also in Spanish, sadly since I'm not that good with the language it's hard for me to make out a lot of it or asses it's reliability.★Trekker (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Removing Collaborative Effort from WP:CGR/tasks

As per a decision agreed to three years ago about a collaborative effort dating to 2013 (see Archive 36; April 12th, 2021), I've decided upon seeing the project's tasks page that we are never going to make Theatre of Pompey a GA (at least in any remote connection to the collaborative effort's section being present on the tasks page). It's just kind of in the way for those of you who like to visit the tasks page. Yes I've lurked for that long :) Paladin Arthur (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

1. I probably should have brought it up first to make sure we still feel the same. If anyone advocates for its continued inclusion on the tasks page there's nothing wrong with reverting and reopening discussion (after all, it was in 2021 when its existence was met with 'meh'). Paladin Arthur (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)