Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Diana Veteranorum

I'd a appreciate some third opinions on edit dispute there. A somewhat new editor, User:Cresthaven (with wikipedia for a few months), is repeatedly adding material to the article which imho is inappropriate. He added a big quote which imho is inappropriate or at least "unusual" in that form. It is material (a detailed description of the ruins) that you would usually use as a source and incorporate it in the article in your own words, but he quotes the whole description verbatim in the middle of the article with parts being partially redundant to the rest of the article. Another problem is that he keeps adding questionable sources, instead of recent up-to-date scholarly literature (ideally in archeology/history/antiquity) he insist on using material from 19th century travel guide. I tried to engage him on the talk page and to explain the problems but it seems like I failed.

So in order to avoid an edit war and this turning into a personal issue, I'd appreciate some thord opinions/fresh perspective on the article's talk page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sincerely I don't want any edit war with user KMHkmh. As I wrote, I understand him because he is a mathematician. But in archeology and ancient history we cannot maintain the same "math mentality"....As an Italian archeologist wrote, archeology is like a math equation where we don't have most data, but we have to make the equation (meaning we have to "surmise" it). So, when I am researching the ancient roman colonies in Maghreb or in Algeria, I cannot find information at all in most cases (mainly with small cities)...and I have to use old information (even a century or more old). If not, what I am going to write? Furthermore, the XIX books are very well written and contain archeological information that has been destroyed by the wars between French colonists and Algerian moslems in the last 2 centuries. No data are available since 1970 on many small roman localities! I invite KMHkmh to write with me the next article I plan to do on Oppidum Novum: he will see how difficult it is to find information on google, yahoo or on recent books.....Only on old French colonial books he will find something. And about the quotations: there are many similar on many Wikipedias (but for me this is secundary, and I personally don't care about) Sincerely, --Cresthaven (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll quote part of the debate, posted by KMHkmh:

Thanks for adding the exact info. However after taking a closer look now, I'm going to remove that again but for other reasons. Simply because it is not suited for quote. First of all the author of the quote is not Stillwell or any of the other editors of the Princeton Encylopedia but M. LEGLAY . More importantly the content as such is not particularly suited for a quote as it is simply description of the site. The information should simply integrated into the normal article, which already contains a part of the information anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Also please do not add rather outdated literature under bibliography or references. The general idea is that books or journal articles listed there represents the most recent authoritative publication on the subject. By a rule of thumb that pretty much excludes any publications from the 19th century. Even quoting Mommsen here is imho rather borderline. He is a famous historian but his pupblications and his knowledge of Diana Veteranorum lack over a 100 years of new archeological findings and historical knowledge established in that period.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I can agree fully with integrating the contents of the text into the article. That would be much more useful than a long quotation that duplicates the scope of the article. However, I'd like some clarification as to why the Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites doesn't qualify as a scholarly source. Is it that the encyclopedia's description is based on the observations of a 19th century traveler? Apparently it was relevant and accurate enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia when it was published in 1976. Since when are Wikipedia articles held to a higher standard than those in other encyclopedias? And who should be making that judgment?

Unless there's some specific, explainable reason to believe that the information is inaccurate (and not merely outdated due to changes in names and language since it was written), it has every reason to be included, irrespective of when M. Leglay visited and described the site. A historical description is just as relevant as a modern one. If conditions at a site from antiquity haven't changed, there's no reason to exclude it; if they have changed within the last century, then that fact also makes the previous description relevant.

I must take issue with the request that editors not add "rather outdated literature under bibliography or references." First, I disagree strongly with the definition of "rather outdated," which in your own words "pretty much [in]cludes any publications from the 19th century. Even quoting Mommsen here is imho rather borderline." I think that you'll find that 19th and even 18th century classical scholarship forms the basis for much of modern classical research as well. If you can find detailed recent descriptions of ancient history that don't quote or cite previous scholarship, that would be a wonder in itself.

In some respects there was much more detailed scholarship carried out in the 19th century than there is now. Without that scholarship there'd be no Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, no Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, and no Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. The depth of treatment of various subjects in works such as these is unequalled by most contemporary sources. Sure, you'll find lots of books on Caesar, but if you want an in-depth biography on Publius Clodius Pulcher, you can go to the Oxford Classical Dictionary and find a 3-paragraph summary, or the DGRBM and get nearly 7 full columns detailing his life, political career, and relations with other important historical figures such as Cicero or Titus Annius Milo, all of it chock full of citations to the original material. And while then as now, opinions of Clodius might differ from one author to the next, the basic facts haven't changed since that article was written, nor would we expect them to.

I don't want to belabor the point. Merely to say that vast quantities of 18th and 19th century classical scholarship is relevant and reliable for use in Wikipedia. I'm not saying that perspectives on the significance of events hasn't changed, or that new discoveries haven't been made. But there needs to be a reason to limit or exclude relevant information other than that it was written in the 19th century. Excluding Mommsen for no other reason than age would be the epitome of hubris. P Aculeius (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here. There were 2 things in the edit conflict I disagreed with:

a) the quote as such in this form in the article (whereas the source of the quote is fine)

b) the use of outdated or non scholarly sources which refers to primarily to Verseker (non scholarly, outdated) and possibly Mommsen (outdated).

I don't disagree about the importance of the research in the 19th century and that it forms the base for the current research. I do however argue that those works from the 19th century in most cases have no place in the reference or bibliography section of a Wikipedia article, which are supposed to contain relatively recent, up-to-date authoritative literature on the subject. The Wikipedia article should be primarily based on such literature and not literature from the 19th century. The eminent figures from the 19th century belong into the historiography or history of reception sections but are not supposed to be the principle sources for the article. Of course do scholarly articles refer to many other older scholarly articles, however they also do reassess and correct them. Consequently a Wikipedia article should only be based on the most recent literature at the end of those "reference trees/threads". Imagine for instance somebody would base the Wikipedia article on the Shang dynasty in China primarily on 19th century sources (in particular since they might be easily available online). However the historicity was only established by 1930 roughly, when its ancient capital was discovered and archeologically researched. This is in particular important since many WP authors not exactly established scholars in the subjects they write about. The same holds even more for our readers. But only a well versed scholar in the subject can decide or recognize which information from fairly old sources is still correct (and would be save to use in WP) and which is not. So to assure the correctness and quality of our content, we usually need to insist on using recent authoritative scholarly sources rather than (possibly outdated) ones from the 19th century. There might be the occasional exception from that rule if expert editor (deemed trustworthy) knows exactly what he is doing, but it should be clear that this is the exception and not the rule.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think KMHkmh is creating a mess about a problem that is totally without importance for our Wikipedia. Verseker or Leglay are reliable sources IMHO. Who cares if they are too old? We care about serious sources, nothing else. I totally agree with Aculeius. One suggestion: KMHkmh should add to the article what wrote Leon Renier on JSTOR, instead of complaining about (IMHO) irrelevant problems.BTW why to define Mommsen "borderline questionable as well"? IMHO what wrote Cresthaven about Diana Veteranorum is OK. It is true his comment that "archeological information...has been destroyed by the wars between French colonists and Algerian moslems in the last 2 centuries. No data are available since 1970 on many small roman localities". Indeed many ruins from Roman centuries have disappeared in the last decades, even because Algerian Arabs want to erase the past before their arrival in the Maghreb. Since 1963 the Algerians systematically "forget" the archeological research that was done during the "Algerie Francaise"! And all this means that we have to use authors of the last century, if we want to write an article about Diana Veteranorum or about another little roman colonia in Numidia (like Oppidum Novum). IMHO the article should remain as it is, or with the addition of Renier-JSTOR excerpts.--48Utilisateur (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Again there is no issue Leglay as a source nor is there any issue with the fact that on many smaller roman settlements in Algeria after 1970. However this does not mean that we simply can use any source before 1970 no matter how old not matter whether it is scholarly or not, we should always use the most recent and authoritative scholarly sources on a subject which are available (as in exists). If there is nothing new after 1970 or even 1900 then obviously we resort earlier ones (essentially the last published), but the if here is crucial. Given the literature that does exist in the case of Diana Veteranorum listing Verseker under bibliography (the section supposed to contain the most authoritative literature on the subject) is in my eyes actually a bit of bad joke. At best you can argue to use Verseker in footnote to source the term respublicae Dianensium temporarily to be replaced by a more appropriate source later on.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As I don't know anything about the historiography of Shang Dynasty China, I can only accept the premise that good scholarship on the subject didn't exist in the 19th century, at least as compared with recent sources. But that's certainly not the case with most subjects from classical antiquity. It's not necessary to be an expert in a field in order to quote or cite to scholarly research or secondary sources, even if they are a hundred years old. If more recent sources clearly show that the older reference materials are somehow inaccurate, then by all means those sources should be preferred. But in the absence of new and clearly differentiated sources, there's absolutely no reason to disregard or exclude scholarly works from the 19th century, or to treat them with suspicion.

To the extent that historians such as Mommsen analyzed data and formed hypotheses that might readily be outmoded as society's views change over time, of course those analyses are subject to review and re-interpretation. But to the extent that they report facts that are not clearly contradicted by any later or more knowledgeable source, those reports can and should be included as relevant and probative. Excluding them merely because their reports were written in the 19th century, and calling them "outdated" is simply absurd. Individual editors are not entitled to create their own policies for the inclusion or exclusion of relevant material based on nothing more than the age of the source.

While you may have meant to refer to Verseker's account, in the quoted comment above, you specifically took issue with the description of M. Leglay included in the Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, on the grounds that M. Leglay was not one of the editors of the encyclopedia. That was and is not a valid basis to remove his description. Evidently the editors of the encyclopedia thought the description was not only notable but useful enough to quote instead of merely paraphrasing it. While it might fit better into a larger article as a series of individual facts paraphrased in the appropriate paragraphs, nothing about the quotation makes it unreliable, nothing else included in the article suggests that it's outdated, and the fact that M. Leglay wasn't himself one of the editors of the encyclopedia quoting his account is totally irrelevant.

As for Mr. Verseker, here is the totality of what he says about the place: "[t]he ancient municipium Dianæ Veteranorum, or Respublica Dianensium, stood on the site of the present Zana, twenty-five miles to the north-east of Batna..." Here there is nothing he can possibly have said that would be rendered inappropriate by the passage of time. It is a simple factual description of the location of the place. There's nothing wrong with mentioning him as a source insofar as he states a relevant fact. Travel guides are not inherently unreliable when describing the location of one site relative to another, any more than a road map would be today. If the information would be better given as a note than as part of the bibliography, then by all means change it to a note. But don't simply rail against it because it's old or because it's not written as part of somebody's doctoral dissertation... P Aculeius (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Misreading what I said is not helping issue. I originally removed the quote for 2 reason:

1.) I consider such quotes as somewhat inappropriate for the reasons you outlined yourself above.

2.) I considered it unsourced at the time, as it had no footnote and the person it was attributed to didn't match the sources under references (at that point i was not aware that stillwell was supposed to the same source as Leglay.

I did not remove it because I consider Leglay or the Princeton enclypopedia as outdated or otherwise unsuited sources. As I repeatedly stated they are fine as sources and in fact got added to the article by myself years ago.

The issue of unsuited sources (being outdated or non scholary) has nothing to do with the quote but refers to to the use of Vereker as a source (and maybe Mommsen). Now concering this I'd like to ask you a a few questions.

What in Mommsen description do you consider as (eternal?) "reported facts"? How do you recognize what in Mommsen work is outdated or actually false and what is still correct other than by reading more recent authoritative literature on the subject?

To intentionally exaggerate this a bit to get the point across. If you can safely tell where Mommsen is correct or not because have read the recent literature on the subject, then you have at least no need to reference Mommsen (alone) but you can reference the recent literature (at least in addition to Mommsen). And I cannot fathom a good reason why you would discard the recent literature in favour of Mommsen in such a case. More importantly however if you use Mommsen without having read the more recent literature you are kind of flying blind, that is you have no clue whether the content you use is still accurate or not. Yes you can can make educated guess to parts where a chance in knowledge is highly unlikely and so he is presumably save to use. But why on earth should we base Wikipedia articles on such a guesswork? And no avoid a misunderstanding here, this has nothing to do with Mommsen status as a scholar or the quality of his work but it has to do with his work being based on knowledge base that lacks for instance over 100 years of new archeological knowledge. This was btw exactly the example with the Shang Dynasty, the issue here was that scholarly work on ancient China was particularly shoddy in the 19th century (at least I'm not aware of that), but that new archeological information can change our knowledge and perception completely. I picked this case as a rather drastic example. With regard to antiquity and the Romans there are similar cases, though albeit a less dramatic. You can look at the archeological digs in Kalkriese (1968) with regard to the clades variana, the Waldgirmes Forum (1993) or Battle at the Harzhorn (2000).--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're just going around and around in circles trying to prove something without any evidence. If you have something well-sourced and authoritative that contradicts or disproves the descriptions or assumptions made in older scholarly literature, then of course that evidence should form the chief basis of the article. But if you don't have anything like that, then you can and should accept the authority of the older literature without dismissing it as outdated. You describe the use of 19th century classical scholarship such as Mommsen as "guesswork" and "flying blind," yet the course of action that you want Wikipedians to adopt is to dismiss such sources without any reason other than age, irrespective of whether there's any more recent or contradictory evidence. Precisely how is that not "guesswork" and "flying blind?"

The quality of 19th century scholarship on ancient China is not at issue here. No matter what the state of that research, 19th century classical scholarship was of a very high calibre. The chief differences between the literature of that time and our own have to do with the interpretation of social relationships, not the brick-and-mortar facts of who went where and built what. The fact that something was written in the 19th century does not make it inaccurate, misleading, or irrelevant, and those are the criteria by which sources must be evaluated. If the only reason you have to suspect the appropriateness of a source is its age, and you haven't found anything of comparable authority and detail to contradict it, then there is no reason to discard it. P Aculeius (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to exclude old sources just because of their age, but i want WP articles to based on most recent authoritative sources (which imho is actually a nobrainer and really fail to see what's their even to argue about). Now if for some reason a source from the 19th century fills that description then of course that is the one to use. However that is clearly not the case for Mommsen. In other words I do not want to Wikipedian to use old sources when more recent sources exist, as such behaviour aside from making little in general, increases the likelihood of outdated or false information to creep into WP. and again you're "brick and mortar" simply ignoring 120 years of archeological research and I gave you already 4 well known examples where that attitude clearly fails.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(Recruited from RS noticeboard.) Here's the question: Is this article based primarily on old sources? Of the nine sources listed in Diana Veteranorum, three are explicitly twenty-first-century, three give no year, and two are either 1800s or 1800s reprints (counting the 1976 encyclopedia).

Each source should be evaluated on its own merits. If new and old sources agree, then make two tags and cite both. Being old is not by itself indicative that a source is not reliable. The way I see it, there is exactly one case in which a newer source is clearly preferable to an older source: A later edition of the same book that either covers the same material. Even that doesn't make older versions unusable, just second-best.

Also—and I wrote this in my post on the RS board before reading this thread—some older sources have information not covered in newer sources, and that seems to be the case here.

I agree with P Aculeius about drawing a distinction between facts reported by old sources and analyses and conclusions drawn in old sources.

And Cresthaven? Best not to speculate on Kmhkmh's thought process unless Kmhkmh posts about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A quick reply here to clarify a few things. Right now we have two different disputes one with regard to the article and one with regard to the proper use of sources In Wikipedia in general (mainly betwen P Aculeius and me).

As far as the article is concerned it is of course not primarily based on older sources, as this is something I specifically avoided when writing it. However some of the later additions were based on older sources, that is Mommsen (seminal book/eminent scholar from the 19th century) and Vereker (19th century travel guide). The content they source is harmless enough so there is no real dispute over that. However the content most certainly can be sourced with more recent sources and definitely more scholarly ones than a travel guide. My main objection right now is having the Vereker listed in the bibliography section (a 19th century travel guide as principal literature on an archeological site? I mean please ...). As far Mommsen is concerned, personally I wouldn't use him as there should be much more recent literature on Roman provinces in Africa. Personal preferences aside it is probably ok to use him in footnote on uncontroversial content. However the current footnote cites Mommsen's book without page number and just gives a section title. I digitally searched that book for "zana", "dian", "diana" and "dianensium" and it came up empty ([1]). This seems to suggest that Mommsen has at least nothing writing specifically about Diana Veteranorum, but probably just a general line about veteran colonies in Northern Africa or the Maghreb.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this: Issue #1: You just believe newer sources are better. Okay, valid opinion. If you have a newer source ready to go, make another tag and support the content with both the new and old sources. That's what I'd do.

Issue #2... In addition to other problems that you have with this content, you don't believe that the older source does support the article text because you've gone through the indicated section and you just don't see it. Well okay, that I can definitely get behind as a real problem. WP:V says that content that has been challenged (even for reasons that other people don't take seriously) be reinforced by a ref tag that "directly" supports it. @Cresthaven:, you're the one who added this, right? Tell us the page number and edition of the book you used. Then Kmhkmh or anyone else who wants to can check the next time they hit the archives. If you really want to go above and beyond, Crest, you can type out or copypaste the text that you believe supports the content here for everyone to see. The rules don't require you to do this. It's a request.

However, if it is not immediately possible for someone other than Crest to look at the book, leave the content in in the meantime. AGF requires that we take Crest at his or her word until we have a reason not to. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Look. Cresthaven cites a page number, 225, in this edit summary. Does it help? If not, could you guys be looking at different editions? Crest, this wasn't a typo for 255 or anything, was it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

p. 225 is the page number for Vereker not Mommsen.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to boldly remove the reference, but not for reasons of age. If this site has only been called "Respublica Dianensium" in one source from any time period, if the mention is unique, then there is no reason to have it in an article on clear WP:UNDUE grounds. The age has little to do with it. If a respected and well-cited source says something once, it could be arguably important to an article; if Charles Smyth Vereker says something once and we can't find anyone else in the world who agrees with his passing mention, then it's undue material. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. In his text, he doesn't even say anybody other than him has ever used the term, so the material in the article is a bad paraphrase as well.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I was suspicious about "Respublica Dianensium" too as wasn't aware of this spelling and its use (plus the fact that I regard Vereker as an inappropriate source). However after researching the term a bit I found it in appropriate scholarly publications as well, so I will re-add the information later with an appropriate source (among other it is found as "res publica Dianensium" in Horster, p.423 footnote at the bottom).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It is astonishing to see that KMHkmh keeps "fighting" against the opinion of 4 or 5 wikipedians and keeps not accepting the point of view of the clear majority. He is alone with his POV and now he even goes to another wiki site (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) to create more mess. IMHO this is the kind of stuff/problems that pushes wikipedians out of Wikipedia! No wonder if Cresthaven goes away from all these discussions, about a problem that is totally without importance for our Wikipedia (I would understand him!). Allow me to repeat for the last time that We care about serious sources, nothing else. Regards--48Utilisateur (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not about majorities but doing the right thing and an old travel guide is anything but a "serious source" for an archeological site. You may not care that much for proper and accurate sourcing, I however do, in particular for articles that I've written myself and/or maintaining. A "mess" usually comes from low quality standards, which btw is pushing authors out as well. As far as "yet" another site is concerned, I raised the question at exactly 2 project pages which deal which such issues from slightly different perspectives, here because it falls in the domain of this and and at WP:IRS because it the central place for dealing with sourcing issues and assessing sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Going to a noticeboard is not a problem. The "Charles Smyth Vereker" source doesn't look like a particularly serious source, and that has nothing to with its age. I think people have been lead into a grand debate about whether older sources are valid (I agree they can be), but that has nothing to do with whether this source is anything other than a unique interpretation in a book that doesn't seem to be cited somewhere. Am I incorrect in characterising it that way? Is Charles Smyth Vereker considered authoritative in some way by modern-day scholars? We aren't supposed to repeat anything we find in a book ever, just because we found something in a book.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for mention of the colonization of the town in Mommsen, I don't see it named anywhere in the chapter on the African Provinces, which is where it's cited to. There's considerable discussion of the organization of the region in different periods of Roman history, and a few mentions of garrisons and veterans, but I didn't see anything that clearly identified this town or implied that it was part of the colonization effort. The closest thing I found was one or two mentions of a series of garrisons along the mountains near Lambaesis and Cirta. In order to cite to Mommsen, it would be necessary to either A) identify exactly which passages imply that Diana Veteranorum was part of the settlement, or was settled at a particular period or by particular people; or B) explain that the region around Diana Veteranorum was settled in this time and manner, instead of stating that Mommsen describes the circumstances of the town's settlement. P Aculeius (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding our dispute about sources E L A Q U E A T E posted a comment on [WP:IRS]] which we both probably can agree to and which imho resolves most of the dispute:

A source requires a modern-day and current reputation for accuracy, but the source itself can be from any time. If a source has a good contemporary reputation for accuracy it can probably still be used. As far as scholarly publications, a currently-well-respected article from twenty-years ago is usually more reliable a source than a paper that came out a year ago that no one subsequently cited. So "newest" doesn't necessarily indicate "reliability", although extremely old sources are much less likely to enjoy currency of respect. Sometimes they do, though.

In my postings above I used (rather) old age as very crude proxy (by likelihood) for modern-day and current reputation for accuracy. I have no objections whatsoever against a source from the 19th century (or of any age) which in recent, modern day reviews is still considered accurate. As far as Mommsen's roman history is concerned, after digging a bit around and taking a looktat it again, I tentatively agree that age as a proxy failed me here and still seem still to be considered accurate in more recent assessments/reviews.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

On the name, Respublica Dianensium, in addition to Vereker, I find an extensive description in Travels in the Footsteps of Bruce in Algeria and Tunis, by fr:Robert_Lambert_Playfair, who cites it to fr:Léon_Renier; the form also occurs in fr:Charles-Joseph Tissot's Exploration scientifique de la Tunisie; in an extensive discussion of names of the town in Recueil des Notices et Mémoires de la Province de Constantine, which states that this form occurs in a number of inscriptions. Several other sources appeared when I simply googled the name. It seems that much of the research on the town is in French-language sources, which isn't entirely surprising since there seems to have been a considerable effort to survey classical sites in North Africa during the French colonial period. But at any rate, if we have a source that explicitly identifies the name as one occurring in numerous inscriptions, then it's suitably attested for this article. P Aculeius (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"res publica Dianensium" is also in Horster (already in the article's bibliography, see my posting above).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The 1870s sources are that inscriptions were found with those words. It is a jump from mentioning those inscriptions to clear scholarly agreement that it represented a formal name. "Res publica" has a generic as well as formal meaning. If Kmhkmh can include a clearer example of what scholars currently think about the issue, with citations to things more clearly reliable by Wikipedia standards, then I can't see that as anything but an improvement to the article. I don't find the Vereker source convincing by itself, either for the way the material was paraphrased in our article, or the idea that it represents an accepted scholarly idea among anyone living today. The threshold for reliability is more than "appeared in a book of unknown reputation". The threshold for due weight must also be met. If editors can do that, the material should be added, and the article will be stronger for having had unreliable sources challenged.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WOW...here we have continuous talk around the same thing....Elaquate, you seem a master of byzantine talk! KMKkmh you write kms and kms of the same thing in order to get what you want...OK. I give up with your POVs....Good luck

The consensus was that no source should be dismissed because of age. Asking whether the source supports the material in question is not "fighting consensus," 48U. I'd support re-insertion of the material if Crest or anyone can show that it is really there, but no one should suggest that Kmh has done anything wrong. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

For future reference I'd like to point out that 48Utilisateur is apparently sock puppet of the banned user Brunodam (see User:48Utilisateur, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brunodam/Archive,User_talk:Vituzzu#Portmahomack).--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Marathon really outdated!

Please improve this article. --Epìdosis (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Marathon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--Epìdosis (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Tribuni militum consulari potestate

I would like to comment the writter(s) of the Tribuni militum consulari potestate page for an excellent work. One research question I had for a long time, which is not answered in this Wikipedia page, is the answer to the question: "What were the reasons that on certain years Consular Tribunes were ruling Rome, while on other years Consuls were elected?"
Ronbarak (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, looking over that article I think it could use a bit of revision. Right now it looks like nearly all of it comes from a single author, and the interpretation seems a bit speculative to me. Maybe I'll work on it in the next few days.

As for why this was done, the long explanation would be that the office was created as part of a compromise intended to resolve the Conflict of the Orders; a shorter version can be read at Tribune of the Plebs. The Roman state lurched along in this manner from 444 to 367 BC, but the Lex Licinia Sextia, formally admitting the plebeians to the consulship, made the office unnecessary. At least, that's the traditional explanation, and it reflects how the Roman historians looked back on the office. But the author cited in the article seems to have a different interpretation! P Aculeius (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Ancient Roman architecture, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Evad37 [talk] 00:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Requesting verification on Battle of Lyncestis

I'm hoping someone at this WIkiProject can take a look at Battle of Lyncestis. I originally tagged it as a suspected hoax, because a google search for the title yielded zero results and the refs are poorly formed. The author has pointed to some references, but none seem to identify the battle by name. Could someone please take a look at this article, make sure the content is valid, and figure out if there's a better title that's backed up by sources? Thanks so much! —Swpb^talk 14:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Just had a very brief poke around. Not at all familiar with the Peloponnesian War, but at least some of the general information appears to match other articles. In particular this paragraph from Perdiccas II of Macedon (not the one linked in the lead paragraph; that's a mistake) suggests that, while the details of the article may need verification, such a battle did occur:

After this, Perdiccas was allied to the Spartans and, in 424, helped the Spartan Brasidas to take Amphipolis from the Athenians, one of her most important colonies, mainly for its ready access to timber for her fleets. This was a severe blow to Athens, and would tie them to Macedonian timber for years to come, which strengthened Macedonia’s bargaining power considerably. In return for this, the Spartans helped Perdiccas secure his borders, by leading an assault on King Arrhabaeus of Lyncestis, with the promise of support from the Illyrians (Battle of Lyncestis). However, the Illyrians switched sides and attacked Perdiccas and his Spartan allies. The poorly trained Macedonian troops fled, and so the Spartans also retreated and attacked the Macedonian baggage train in anger. This soured relations between Macedonia and the Peloponnese for years to come, and pushed Perdiccas closer to Athens, allying himself with them in 423.

Now, the parenthetical "Battle of Lyncestis" is a recent addition to the paragraph by the author of the article about the battle. I didn't find any other references to it by name, either this name or any other. But unless someone's been leading up to a hoax for many years and somehow evaded detection, I think it's safe to say that some kind of battle occurred. Perhaps more digging will uncover another name, or else it might be called "Battle between Perdiccas II of Macedon and Arrhabaeus of Lyncestis," which might be more accurate, if a bit of a mouthful. Anyway, it doesn't look like the battle is a hoax, although I can't vouch for the details at this time. P Aculeius (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! —Swpb^talk 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't check the article but actually the battle took place: for instance you can find some references here or here.--Nungalpiriggal (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The invasion of Lyncestis and ensuing battle is described by Thucydides at 4.124-126, so it is certainly not a hoax. Regarding the article title: this was a relatively minor affair, so it's not really a surprise that it has never received any specific name in modern literature, you don't need one if your treatment of the battle is part of a running text on some wider topic. However, as far as I know, there not being any established name for a topic does not prevent the creation of an article on that topic (as long as notability criteria are met). There are many such articles around Wikipedia. I agree though that the current name is not ideal since Lyncestis is the name of a larger region, not a single place. Maybe something like 423 BC invasion of Lyncestis would be better. Fornadan (t) 20:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, a name change might be appropriate and the article needs better and complete references, the current ones do indeed create a dubious impression at first glance.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review of Ancient Rome

Hallo, I've started reviewing Ancient Rome. The article is largely in good shape but has some uncited material. Willing hands to add citations, to make other fixes, or to contribute critical comments will all be welcome. It would be good to see such an article through to GA status. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The nominator has not edited for two weeks, and has not responded when pinged, so a time-out appears likely. Would anyone care to take on the role of shepherding the article through to GA? Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Epic

Hi, could anybody help explain here that an epic is not a disambiguation? Thank you in advance! Michael! (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

When to use Hades and when Pluto

Hello, can you have a look at Talk:Kasta_Tomb#Hades_vs._Pluto , we're trying to determine whether Hades should be used for Greek mythology and Pluto for Roman. The respective articles in Wikipedia aren't helping very much either as it seems to be a contentious issue. Thanks. George C. Tsiagalakis (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

New article Demography of the Roman Empire

Having nominated this for MfD thinking it had been abandoned, User:G.W showed up and suggested it be moved to mainspace, which I've done. It needs talk page headers, maybe a lead, etc. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tabulating Vase painters

So, earlier I did this to the Penthesilea Painter (Previously it looked much like this). A big problem is that there are lots of holes in the information, particularly as some museums don't have their catalogues online (looking at you, Britain). So, I am wondering (A) if people think this is something that should be done for the other painters and (B) if so, does the table provide all the information it should in the best way it could? Furius (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

GA reviews of Women in ancient Rome and Languages of the Roman Empire

Hello,

I've reviewed the article Women in ancient Rome for GA and am in process with Languages of the Roman Empire. However, the nominator, Historian7, has been inactive on Wiki for about a month, so I was wondering if there are any editors here who would be willing to work on the issues that my reviews bring up. It would be a shame to fail these articles after all of the work that went in to them.--¿3family6 _contribs 05:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You have my sympathy. I wasted time on the same guy; but our reviews may not be wasted if one day someone a little longer-lasting tries taking the articles to GAN, and the existence of the reviews can be brought to the attention of the new reviewers: that could actually be done by a bot, I think; or we can copy the comments into the talk page just in case ("NOTE TO FUTURE GA REVIEWERS"). But we need some way of weeding out such fly-by-night nominations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

In all fairness to the user, the contributions to the article were extremely good and none is far from GA...—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

We reviewers thought all the articles worthwhile and likely to get to GA with a little coaxing, which is partly why, I suspect, we were so disappointed. Our beef is with evaporation, not contribution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I can't blame someone for giving up after waiting almost three months and still not seeing your nomination reviewed.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, blame yourself for not reviewing it sooner! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaving both article on hold for seven days. I encourage any editor who so wishes to to improve the articles to GA status. I am willing to prolong the nominations if there is a pledge that they will be completed.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Greek and Roman Political Ideas by Melissa Lane

Wikimedia UK is delighted to announce that we have been given some copies of E-books from Pelican Books to give to Wikipedia editors, of which Greek and Roman Political Ideas by Melissa Lane may be of particular interest to people in this WikiProject. More details including application details are at Wikipedia:Pelican Books. Sorry, but for commercial reasons this offer is not available for editors in the USA. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of English translations of De Rerum Natura

Please assist with a discussion on the proper method of capitalization for titles of works in written in Latin at Talk:List of English translations of De Rerum Natura. Thank you, Dekimasuよ! 21:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? Dekimasuよ! 01:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Some recent edits to Carausius

User:RichardSkelding has made some extensive edits to the article on Carausius, some of which are valuable and some of which I have concerns about. I've started a discussion about them on the talk page and would ask anyone with any interest or knowledge of the subject to weigh in with their opinions. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Pliny about coins

I am writing an essay on the relevance of Roman coin names for datation purposes. Could somebody please tell me the place where Pliny writes about Roman coins (I already found about that in Varro, but have no idea where to look for in Pliny).Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Brutus

Hello, just to notify you that there is a problem with the article Brutus (Cicero). You will quickly understand, I guess... Thank you, Fabrice Ferrer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Problem with tenses in biographical articles

Another editor keeps changing the text of Titus Aebutius Elva to read as if he were still alive. The text originally read, "~ was the father of..." and now it reads, "~ is the father of..." I've tried reverting this, since deceased persons are not normally spoken of in the present tense. But the editor will not be denied; his edit summaries read:

• "a a birth relation never has a tense only life or death of the person"
• "WP should not contain false statements. you can never except through law and annulment that someone is you parent or your sibling or your child or your relative."
• "...but not the relationship that exists between them that will always exists one is the father and one is the son and death will not change that; only whether one or both are dead"
• "death has no effect if someone is your father or son. even when someone dies one is the father and the other is the son. the interaction may not be as before but one is the father and one is the son."

This makes no sense. It's not a philosophical argument. I don't know what the next step in this process should be. Should I ask an administrator to semi-protect the page? P Aculeius (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe asking at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies for advice is a better idea? Looking at his Contributions, he has made this change to quite a lot of pages recently, so just semi-protecting this one doesn't seem very fruitful. Fornadan (t) 08:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've opened a new section at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Is or was and asked the editor to discuss it there.[2] NebY (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguating divinities

There is a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. The question is: when a divinity has an ambiguous name, should its title use the word "(mythology)", "(deity)", or either "(god)" or "(goddess)"?

Anyone interested can make comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Disambiguations of divinities. A. Parrot (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

What were the omens given to Caesar by Mutunus Tutunus?

In the article Mutunus Tutunus it is stated that Augustus had the sacellum of the god on the Velia demolished because it had given bad omens about Caesar's demise. This is referenced to an article by Palmer. However it is not stated what these omens were concretely and the authorities relating such facts.

Could someone help? Is it Plutarch...?Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Presumably the speculative argument is based on Cassius Dio 44.16.3 "Moreover, the sacrifices which [Julius Caesar] offered because of these occurrences were not at all favourable, and the birds he used in divination forbade him to leave the house." (No mention that it was Liber and I'm not sure how sound an identification of Liber with Mutinus Tutinus is). Suetonius and Plutarch don't mention sacrifices. Furius (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I shall have a look...Mutunus T. may be identified with the Genius Publicus P. R., and it sounds very odd that Augustus had it demolished.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Plutarch, Ceasar, 63.12; "And when the seers also, after many sacrifices, told him that the omens were unfavourable, he resolved to send Antony and dismiss the senate.", Appian, Civil War, II.115, "When he offered sacrifice there were many unfavourable signs." So textual tradition seems quite uniform on the sequence of events (I guess they all used the same source?): 1) In the morning Calpurnia warns Caesar after a bad dream 2) Caesar offers sacrifice, but the signs are unfavourable 3) He decides to send Antony to dismiss the senate. 4) But Decimus Brutus convinces him to reconsider. No explicit mention to whom he sacrificed though. Fornadan (t) 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I checked Cassius Dio. No mention of Liber. It might be assumed he sacrificed to the genius of the gens Julia or

the lar familiaris, but anyway it looks hardly possible to infer that the Mutunus T. of Rome gave unfavourable omens, and that Augustus acted in consequence of this fact.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevant move request

There is a move request at Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) that members of this project may be interested in. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I made us a userbox

• I made Template:User WikiProject CGR for anyone who is interested. PsychoticSpartan123 (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind... There is already one on the first page which i somehow missed after checking before making this. I will now hide in shame. PsychoticSpartan123 (talk)

Socrates

This article is being totally rewritten by one user. It desperately needs wikifying and checking for factual accuracy and needs to brought back to a manageable size. I do not have the expertise to respond to this myself - I was just reading the article today but could not do so as it now has a highly complex structure and layout and is full of unnecessary quotes and content that suggests OR. Can someone familiar with the life and times of Socrates please look at the article? Alternatively, can we go back to the version as at 24 February 2015? Thanks --Chewings72 (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Senatus consultum ultimum

Hey everyone! I would like to give the article Senatus consultum ultimum a complete overhaul. A first draft (not complete yet) is available in my sandboxy. Maybe you can give it a look and let me know what you think so far. Also, after that I would like to do a do-over of Crisis of the Roman Republic, which is in very bad shape. Anyone willing to help me there, feel free to write me! :) Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Lopado...pterygon

Article: added Variant forms section thereto because other form(s?) "exist" etc.
BUT (problems and questions):

• 1. LSJ (1940) cites Meineke (Aristophanis Comoediae) having emended the text and quotes the form he supposedly reads; well the one copy/edition I've found at the Internet Archive reads -paraomelito- and -opte-?!?!
• 2. Should I create a redirection using the form I've included?? :) And which form should be presented as being the most "real"? The attested one(s?) or the emended one?
• 3. On top of these, a minor thing but it's accumulative, I've cited F.W. Hall and W.M. Geldart (1907) which the people of Perseus - I usually link to Perseus - have cited as Aristophanes Comoediae...
• 4.This edit and search of mine started with me wanting to provide an etymology/list of the words. The problems for example I've encountered, apart from the fact of doing ..cough.. ORish stuff :) and in addition to the 1&2&3
  
  • λείψανον (I guess; nothing else available prima facie) Sense in this context? Remains of what? In a dish?
  • δριμ? Is it δριμύς? That's the first thing that comes to mind but: sense in this context? Is is attested in a such a context?
  • κιχλεπικοσσυφοσ: LSJ lists κίχλη, κόσσυφος and κιχλοκόσσυφος. What about ἐπί? What is it doing here? Anyone here with access to TLG???
  • κεφαλλ: double lambda? κεφαλή (and even κεφαλῖνος; this would have a porblem of its one being cut down abnormally, but σέλαχος for example has a similar problem) get ruled out this way, at least by normal rules...
• 5. Then there are the etymology-ies in wiktionary; for example:
  • Ιs it βαφή (consistent with the spelling) or βαφά? LSJ does not list a culinary/gastronomic sense about the former while the latter does have one ("broth" Laconic) and the eta vs long alpha could anyway be easily explained away.
  • Is it κρανίον (in this context?!?!) or κράνιον=κράνειον="fruit of κράνεια", κράνεια being "cornelian cherry, Cornus mas".
  • Also listing lagoios (adj.) is consistent with the spelling but how is it consistent semantically? The noun form, attic declension, DAT stem, though also problematic seems preferable to me. Both anyway are cut abnormally.
  • Lopas could also mean "shell-fish". Etc.
  • In any case, does anyone have, know of a serious source on this we could quote to avoid OR? This would be applicable to 1-7.
• 6. Then it's the selection of which part to leave single, which to compound? Do we do what LSJ, without explanation, does? What's e.g. karabomeli then? Karabos and meli on their own are fine.
• 7. Then there's this variant form again at wiktionary (attestation thereof disputed therein), also linked to in the article? Anyone knows whether this form is attested (lepas="limpet")?

Anyway, I think you get my point(s)...
PS I dread btw the thought of going through other editions and possibly finding other attested/emended forms...
Thanatos|talk|contributions 13:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Socrates, again

I would like the editors of this project to take another look at Socrates. The current issue: an editor is expanding the article, with copious and non-standard footnotes. Said editor also seems to think that every sentence, even if it contains uncontroversial content, needs a citation. Some input at Talk:Socrates would be very helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, folks. In this edit to Socratic Question, the editor in question has a citation which links to the minutes of a faculty meeting to establish that the author of a book is a sometime faculty member of Fairfield University. It would be very helpful to have some input... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Images of the Cretan Bull

Man with bull

Could anyone here enlighten us regarding the probable inspiration for this 1900s painting? Theseus or Heracles and the Cretan bull have been suggested, but which of the men? Also, are there certain antique images that could have served as inspiration, such as this or this? Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What is your real question, @Urbourbo? Is this aimed at an essay on the matter? As your question already says, the Swedish legend offers that it is likely linked to mythologic stories such as those of Theseus and the Marathonian bull, which you have already connected to this image that you provide, or related to the seventh labor of Heracles, which you have already connected to this other image that you provide. Are you looking for certainty? Or further ideas? WP is not a place for solid research for academic coursework. That is what art and art history libraries and compendia and librarians are for… but I will put this to my art historian spouse, and reply again. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Leprof 7272. In this case I'm personally interested in the relationship between the artist and his buyer. I do not expect us to arrive at certainty, but I was looknig for insights into how an art historian might evaluate which of the two heroes (and any respective previous/antique piece of art) that could be the more probable inspiration for the painting. Somewhat off-topic of course, but any verifiable clarifications would result in work (by me) on the respective articles. Hence, any input from your spouse would be highly appreciated. All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for article map attention

Today I created a talk page at the article Second Triumvirate, regarding the maps that appear, representing the territories controlled by the various parties at two different time points in Roman history (42 and 40 BCE). An issue — the largest of several — is that the inherent legends on the maps, in Italian and German, visible when the images are expanded, give date ranges that contradict the single dates given on the editor-created legends for each map panel in the article.(!) My impulse was to delete the maps as being inaccurate for this reason, but I come here to allow experts in the matter make this decision.

Division of Roman Territories at Different Timepoints.

At the foundation of the Triumvirate (42 BC).

  Antony

  Lepidus

  Octavian

  Triumvirs collectively

After the Treaty of Brundisium (40 BC).

  Sextus Pompey

  Brutus & Cassius

  Rome's client kingdoms

  Ptolemaic Egypt

I am also troubled by the pattern that this map furthers, in editor's believing that factual information, if introduced via a graphic, needn't be verifiable. The same indicated map set (two maps) contains no information to allow the verification of its claimed historical factual content.

For the foregoing reasons, I tagged the legend elements of the map with and that can be removed once these issues are settled by experts in this area. Cheers. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. The map saying (40 BC) was created by me. And you are right to claim that there are contradictions. I had to compare with my originals to understand what is actually wrong, but now I'm able to report. My map refers to the situation after the treaty of Misenum (39 BC), and now I see that during the transfer to WikiCommons the legend has been changed to "After the Treaty of Brundisium (40 BC)". So this is definitely wrong. It should read: "After the Treaty of Misenum (39 BC)" as does the original license on German Wikipedia which can be found here: [[3]]. "Triumvirs collectively" is also a wrong translation.

Regarding the other map (42 BC) it was apparently done by User:ColdEel (still available on Italian and French Wikipedia, but probably inactive). In his license he claims that it was entirely his own work, but as you can see he based it completely on my map and only changed some colors. He never cites me in his license, although this was one of the conditions in my license for further use. I've already left him a protest note several months ago, but he never answered.

Regarding the provinces he seems to be right, by and by, but you will understand that I can't guarantee for his accuracy. If you want to delete that map, I'd be favorable.

In general no map can ever be taken as a reliable source for historic facts, which always need to be verified in written sources and literature. In this case you have been very attentive to find the incongruences. If you have any other doubt, let me know and I'll try to help.--Borsanova (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Serious problem with multiple articles in the project?

Hello! I notice that since February, a new editor, User:Whalestate has made numerous very significant deletions and additions to articles in this project, not just Socrates. See this. His writing is very poor and reference format is bad. This is way beyond my expertise. Can anyone with expertise here please investigate? Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: I'd like to consider the criticism "very poor" but since you follow the statement with "way beyond my expertise" how could I or anyone have enough confidence that "very poor" is true? If you were an expert in Socrates and philosophy, then I would value your opinion, are you? If not, how do you think it possible you're able to judge my writing? You think Socratic philosophy is easy to understand? I'm making additions, yes, but how are you able to reliably evaluate these? (plus the issue of deletions is already dealt with, please see - Talk:Socrates#Discussion : Akhilleus (talk) 03:09, Whalestate (talk) 12:22, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44. so deletions aren't even a concern any longer). Whalestate (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: quote from The Paradox of Political Philosophy: Socrates' Philosophic Trial By Jacob Howland ----> "... In sum, the philosophical zoology of the counter-cycle finds it's cosmic counterpart in a distinctly Socratic anthropology." < ---- you mean this kind of v.poorly written? ... or just philosophical writing? - Socrates was kind of v.poor, you saying my writing indicates something v.poor also? I might just take it as a compliment, that you say so. Whalestate (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It will be evident to anyone who reads your contributions that your writing is very poor. Indeed, it appears that you are turning numerous articles into nonsense. I do not know the subject area well, so that is why I am asking others here to look into it. You also seem to be deleting large swathes of referenced material. Each of your edits that I review makes me more alarmed. I hope someone from this project investigates as soon as possible. In the meantime, I hope you will refrain from editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Yeah I did revert the edit, but the page never did look good so I figured I'd leave it to those who do know what they are talking about. The page as he has it is difficult to read, but I undid my revert after looking at the page, and in all revisions it is of poor quality (clunky, grammar, syntax, etc.). Psychotic Spartan 123 17:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Hey! thanks for your mentorship though! ... I really appreciate your thoughtfulness in this area - ".... it appears that you are turning numerous articles into nonsense. I do not know the subject area well..." convince me why don't you. This is a good story though it's fiction, like, Ssilvers, "You also seem to be deleting large swathes of referenced material" (where is your evidence? It would be nice if you were so helpful to provide some evidence, it doesn't take an expert to do that) - if you've the time, please read this but it's not very well written in the article. Let me write it better to demonstrate for you I'm capable of writing:

There was a frog living in a well,and that's were the frog lived all the time, the well was it's home. One day an ocean frog hopped along to the well and saw the well frog, and seeing the frog down in the well said to it, "Frog... come out of there, and come with me, because there is a whole world to see, so many things and all the big great things that exist in the ocean". But the well frog said, "I don't believe you, the well is everything, and all there is in the world is this well, and there is no ocean". So, the ocean frog then said something like he had said before, and the well frog, just said like he had said before also. So the ocean frog gave up and went away.

The moral of the story is ... everyone has their own view on the world, and it's difficult to appreciate another person's understanding, unless a person has experienced it for themselves. Simple really, although there is another moral given in the link, perhaps look to that, as a alternative understanding. By the way, if you'd like to improve my writing, perhaps make some suggestions ..... I just might add, the ocean frog might have seen all the ocean and the world, and the well frog seen so little, but which frog understands best? Whalestate (talk)

Here's some text Whalestate has recently contributed to phronesis:

Socratic thought found phronēsis to be synonomous with virtue, in that Socrates thought it true that, all virtuousness were forms of phronēsis. He considered phronēsis to be in it's entirety, the thing to which reason has a use for, which is, to give power to the principles and ideas of ethics. Ethics concerns itself with the good, therefore,phronēsis gives rise to virtuousness within a person, and so, produces influence upon others to the end of creating virtue.

This makes very little sense to me. Many other things that Whalestate has written seem to be of similar quality. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In the thinking in the mind of the person Socrates, he considered the idea of phronēsis to be the same as being a virtuous person. In other words, by thinking in a certain way, by thinking with phronēsis, a person has virtue. Put simply, all virtuousness are forms of phronēsis. This is like saying, being a good person, which is the same as being a virtuous person, is to be also an intelligent or reasonable person with intelligent and reasonable thoughts (both intelligence and reason are what phronēsis is in some way), or, being good is something that happens by also being intelligent and thinking intelligently and reasonably. Phronēsis, i.e. thinking in these ways, makes a person have a certain power in themselves, and that power is to have moral or ethical strength. Ethics is something which means, for a person, to want to do good things, to benefit themselves and others, and so, following on from all these things said in previous sentences here, to think with phronēsis both creates worthwhile and valuable good in oneself (virtue) and also, because people influence others in life, to make others perhaps more virtuous also.

Akhilleus , I'm sure this re-word makes more sense to you, I hope it does, and I learnt something for writing it, which is good. Although if I had to re-write everything which made little sense to others, it would take up too much space in articles maybe, is what i'm thinking, and is philosophy meant to be made as easy as possible for everyone?

I've been writing in a way, I've realized, which is to, on purpose (intentionally), allow the things I've been writing about difficult to understand. I haven't tried to make explaining things as easy as possible for readers. Then again I'm learning myself, so there is the possibility that I haven't written with absolute clarity, I have intelligence so I have confidence in my own writing though.

It is of course of great benefit to have editors comment on my writing, to criticise constructively. When I wrote everything I understood something of the things I wrote about, but I understand now, it isn't easy to communicate the ideas to others. Concepts and subjects in philosophy aren't easy to understand as we know, and communicate in writing, I feel a certain pressure to try and make things as brief and short an explanation as possible, so there are constraints, am I right in thinking it's necessary to make things sentences as short and concise as possible? If I wrote everything out so it was in the plainest English that would be better for everyone?

Criticisms good, but where could any of us find a professor who really and truelly understands things like this, so so well that everyone concerned has confidence in their writing and explanation, and then, because they are a professor, if that professors writing is difficult, the reader would make the effort to understand that difficult writing, because they know a professor has understood the idea or thing or subject.People criticize my writing at least, because everyone knows wikipedia has no entry qualification or necessary conditions to contribute, so people don't have confidence in me so much as they would someone who is known to be an authority. So Akhilleus, if you understand these things I've just written about, then, you could help me understand them more, and we could work together to improve the article. I'm still working on understanding things, so my understanding, it is limited, but I am moving in the direction of understanding more and knowing more, and am committed to these things. If you also share this commitment, which I'm sure you must (and those others involved also), then you (and Myrvin at least) could then continue to discuss ideas such as these, and we could then understand better as a group. I don't profess to be the final conclusive answer, so my writing is going to be flawed. But everyone must know, that to move the article forward, a change has to be made somewhere which represents some attempt at progress, doesn't it? So finding things badly written, is at least, to find something written, not nothing there at all changed. I hope you have some assurances by all I've written here, that I'm endeavouring to understand and to help others to understand, to provide information, and I want to collaborate, and I don't mind being re-edited, and finally everyone concerned are reasonable, so I trust the process of editing I'm involved in. Whalestate (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC) :@Akhilleus::@Myrvin::@Ssilvers:

I don't find the rewritten text any better. In fact, "|In the thinking in the mind of the person Socrates, he considered the idea of phronēsis to be the same as being a virtuous person" is worse than the original. Aside from the ridiculous overwriting of "thinking in the mind of the person"--just say "Socrates thought that"--your first version said that Socrates equated phronesis with virtue, i.e. you said that S. thought two concepts were identical, now you're saying he equated phronesis with being a virtuous person. You're now equating a concept with a state of being. And nothing you've written explains what phronesis actually means--if it's a kind of intelligence or reason, how is it different from logos, nous, or gnome?

If you're finding it difficult to write clearly about this subject that indicates that you don't understand the material. Given what we've come to understand about your research methods at Talk:Socrates, that's not surprising--instead of actually reading whole articles or books, you're reading snippets that you're finding by searching Google Books. Given that philosophy is complex and requires extended contemplation to understand, reading snippets will not lead to understanding. It also requires finding sources that directly relate to the topic at hand--the sources you used on phronesis are about Aristotle, and only make side comments about Socrates (or, rather, Plato's Socrates). These shouldn't be used as the basis of article text about Socrates' (or, really, Plato's) ideas about phronesis--for that, you need a source that concentrates on and writes at length about Socrates. Such a source might tackle the issue of the relationship between episteme, techne, and phronesis, and whether Socrates (or, rather, Plato's Socrates) had that much to say about phronesis as distinct from episteme and techne at all.

Wikipedia isn't a class, and it isn't a writing workshop. If you need help understanding these ideas and you need assistance improving your writing, you should be taking classes, not tossing badly formed writing into Wikipedia articles. Creating a mess that other editors have to clean up isn't an improvement. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Loeb Classic Library available through the Wikipedia Library

Hi all, I wanted to let you know that we now have access to the Loeb Classic Library via a donation to the The Wikipedia Library. Sign up at Wikipedia:Loeb! Sadads (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Vestal Virgin

Recent IP pov editing, on [{Talk:Vestal Virgin]] the IP who edited the article wrote: "Ancient Thracian and Troyan families connection with Vesta and Vesta virgins cult.[edit] At the time Roma was founded by its "mythical" founders, there were a strong Thracian influence over all East Mediterranean countries. In Present Bulgaria (Moesia, Thracia, Macedonia) and Romania (Dacia) the centuries old cultures were spread over the present Greece. It is known that the Roma was founded by Troyan royals after the war of Troy. - That is enough strong path to follow if one need to know the Truth. More: "Vesta" in present Bulgarian (the "old Bulgarians were that time the "Thracian people" - Moesians, Getae etc.), means simple "News" or a "News-bearer". "Vesta virgins" in present Bulgarian is called "vestalki", that means simple - "News-telling-girls". There are any sources and evidences for these connections, and if some one needs to have them, we may help. Here is the simplest one: http://kbedic.sourceforge.net/online/index_en.html

--79.100.49.49 (talk) 9:09 pm, 4 May 2015, last" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

See the edit at [4]. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Please see draft here and relevant comments here. Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Roman roads in the Balkans

Category:Roman roads in the Balkans, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for upmerging to Category:Roman roads. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Historic trails and roads in Turkey

Category:Historic trails and roads in Turkey, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merging into Category:Roman roads in Turkey. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Grouping Roman Roads in general

Hello,

The current Category:Roman roads category has a header saying that the groupings are by Roman provinces. However, there are multiple subcategories by modern country and the Africa and Asia subcategories (that I think were intended for Roman provinces) are being used as continents. Would other editors be supportive if I introduced a broader nomination to group these by province? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Cross-posting: I agree that categorisation by regions and continents is unsatisfactory, and that it makes most sense to categorise by Roman provinces. That said, I think it would also be useful to have a parallel tree by modern country, which could mesh conveniently with the archaeological sites by country tree. Furius (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Antonia Minor listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Antonia Minor to be moved to Antonia the Younger. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Missing article

Why isn't there an article about Education in Classical Greece and Rome? Of all the possible articles someone could write for Wikipedia, this one is low-hanging fruit.

Sorry if I sound snippish, but after spending half an hour looking for appropriate categories for Grammarian (Greco-Roman world), I am gobsmacked that this article does not exist. Honestly. The closest existing article is paideia, which covers only Greek philosophizing about education, not how people were educated. And rhetor is a redirect to rhetoric which has nothing about the position of post-elementary education in the ancient world. (And then Platonic Academy & Lyceum are categorized off in areas that do not link to each other.)

Sheesh, there is even ample material out there one could use to create a decent, usable article before adding it to Wikipedia. One might need to first create some links to it, but that's a trivial matter. Sometimes I wonder about the imagination of my fellow contributors -- but then I often wonder about my own imagination concerning making this a better encyclopedia.

I'd write the &$#@!! article if I hadn't taken on so much already. -- llywrch (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There's these two articles: Education in ancient Rome and Education in ancient Greece that I think covers what you're talking about. -- Psychotic Spartan 123 21:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right; I found both articles shortly after posting my rant.

But it would be nice if these articles weren't so &$#@!! to find. I did my part by creating Category:Education in the ancient world, so I hope the next person looking for this information doesn't lose her/his patience as quickly as I had. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)