This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The date of birth is still said to be 95 A.D. at the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.242.108 ( talk) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
If you can read Italian, here are a couple of epigraphic sources on this major literary figure of the second century:
While both of these sources are over 40 years old, they're still an improvement on this article, which reflects the state of knowledge about Fronto from 90 years ago. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@
Sapphorain: With regard to
this revert. You wrote This is about how his name was written, and not particularly about how he himself wrote it. And how it was written is well known (ex Dione Cassio lxix. 18: Κορνήλιος Φροντών ὁ τα πρῶτα τῶν τότε Ρωμαίων ἐν δίκαις φερόμενος,... et
Can you please cite a reliable source in English or any language other than Greek that states that his name was written as (Φρόντων)?
Like I said in my edit summary, the Greek name is nothing more than WP:OR based on an editor's analysis of a primary source: The encyclopedia relevance of how a multilingual pro-Latin grammarian used to spell his name in non-Latin scripts needs to be established by reliable secondary sources, otherwise why stop at the name? Why not forget about what the scholars have to say and instead go through his personal letters, written mostly in Latin, and deduce whatever we want from them? M.Bitton ( talk) 22:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, we have several letter in Greek from Fronto.That's right, we have access to a primary source that has been heavily studied by modern scholars, yet you're clearly struggling to find a single one of them that mentions how Fronto wrote his name in Greek. Doesn't that tell you something?
You appear to be confused with the type of « original research » that is not allowed in an encyclopedia.Really? Let's see:
Wikipedia does allow and even encourage original research, provided of course it comes from a published work in a reliable source1) No, WP does not allow original research and it certainly does not encourage it. 2) If something is published in a reliable source, it no longer qualifies as original research.
Otherwise we could never mention any mathematical theorem, even published in the most prestigious journal, unless it is mentioned in the New York Times (by someone who would probably not understand the first symbol of it), on the absurd ground that it is « original research ».If something is published in the most prestigious journal (considered reliable RS), then it is properly sourced and nobody in his right would qualify it as OR.
If a scholar does the same and publishes his translation in a good publication, this is original research too but can be mentioned.As far as WP is considered, the scholar's publication would be considered a reliable secondary source. The OR policy applies only to the WP editors.
And finally if a scholar reads a name already written in Greek in a manuscript and print it in the said publication, it is not even original research.This depends on the context. If a scholar analyses a primary source and then finds it necessary to highlight a name written in whatever foreign language, then their work is obviously a secondary source. But, if a translator translates a primary source from A to B (putting both languages side by side) without commenting on what's written, then the only secondary part of their source is the translation in English, which if done properly would constitute a good faithful translation of a primary source (the one that scholars would analyse).
This is precisely what we have in the present case.Here's what we have: 1) An outdated translation from mostly Latin and some Greek to English of an ancient primary source. 2) An editor concentrating not on the translation itself, but on the primary text and drawing a conclusion from it that isn't stated in any secondary source.
One of his follies is to convert names like Saturninus, Fronto and Titianus into Greek names. [2]
If your viewpoint is...). M.Bitton ( talk) 00:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References
colourful and adorned babblingis a diligent dissection of your asinine interpretation of the OR policy. Your last comment tells me that you completely missed the most important part of my first comment: "the encyclopedic relevance of how a multilingual pro-Latin grammarian used to spell his name in non-Latin scripts needs to be established by reliable secondary sources."
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The date of birth is still said to be 95 A.D. at the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.242.108 ( talk) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
If you can read Italian, here are a couple of epigraphic sources on this major literary figure of the second century:
While both of these sources are over 40 years old, they're still an improvement on this article, which reflects the state of knowledge about Fronto from 90 years ago. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@
Sapphorain: With regard to
this revert. You wrote This is about how his name was written, and not particularly about how he himself wrote it. And how it was written is well known (ex Dione Cassio lxix. 18: Κορνήλιος Φροντών ὁ τα πρῶτα τῶν τότε Ρωμαίων ἐν δίκαις φερόμενος,... et
Can you please cite a reliable source in English or any language other than Greek that states that his name was written as (Φρόντων)?
Like I said in my edit summary, the Greek name is nothing more than WP:OR based on an editor's analysis of a primary source: The encyclopedia relevance of how a multilingual pro-Latin grammarian used to spell his name in non-Latin scripts needs to be established by reliable secondary sources, otherwise why stop at the name? Why not forget about what the scholars have to say and instead go through his personal letters, written mostly in Latin, and deduce whatever we want from them? M.Bitton ( talk) 22:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, we have several letter in Greek from Fronto.That's right, we have access to a primary source that has been heavily studied by modern scholars, yet you're clearly struggling to find a single one of them that mentions how Fronto wrote his name in Greek. Doesn't that tell you something?
You appear to be confused with the type of « original research » that is not allowed in an encyclopedia.Really? Let's see:
Wikipedia does allow and even encourage original research, provided of course it comes from a published work in a reliable source1) No, WP does not allow original research and it certainly does not encourage it. 2) If something is published in a reliable source, it no longer qualifies as original research.
Otherwise we could never mention any mathematical theorem, even published in the most prestigious journal, unless it is mentioned in the New York Times (by someone who would probably not understand the first symbol of it), on the absurd ground that it is « original research ».If something is published in the most prestigious journal (considered reliable RS), then it is properly sourced and nobody in his right would qualify it as OR.
If a scholar does the same and publishes his translation in a good publication, this is original research too but can be mentioned.As far as WP is considered, the scholar's publication would be considered a reliable secondary source. The OR policy applies only to the WP editors.
And finally if a scholar reads a name already written in Greek in a manuscript and print it in the said publication, it is not even original research.This depends on the context. If a scholar analyses a primary source and then finds it necessary to highlight a name written in whatever foreign language, then their work is obviously a secondary source. But, if a translator translates a primary source from A to B (putting both languages side by side) without commenting on what's written, then the only secondary part of their source is the translation in English, which if done properly would constitute a good faithful translation of a primary source (the one that scholars would analyse).
This is precisely what we have in the present case.Here's what we have: 1) An outdated translation from mostly Latin and some Greek to English of an ancient primary source. 2) An editor concentrating not on the translation itself, but on the primary text and drawing a conclusion from it that isn't stated in any secondary source.
One of his follies is to convert names like Saturninus, Fronto and Titianus into Greek names. [2]
If your viewpoint is...). M.Bitton ( talk) 00:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References
colourful and adorned babblingis a diligent dissection of your asinine interpretation of the OR policy. Your last comment tells me that you completely missed the most important part of my first comment: "the encyclopedic relevance of how a multilingual pro-Latin grammarian used to spell his name in non-Latin scripts needs to be established by reliable secondary sources."