This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Wikipedia actually has a project designated for reporting pederastic activity. I had reported Haiduc for a number of issues but they declined to intervene. The fact is, we as a group are limited to what actions we can take and that may be for the best. But the real problems created by agenda driven editors is the problem that faces the members here.
How to best deal with articles is to work together and not to attempt to overstep our boundaries as members and not move so quickly as to become a concern to others as well. I also believe we have to listen to all the cautions of those that may not agree even if, in the long run, consensus is against them. Reactionary editing can be as bad as agenda driven editing and that is a criticism we must be aware of.
Having said that, I believe consensus has been reached for the page split and I have begun work to do just that. A
has been placed on the article and the disambiguation page has been properly moved to the correct title for that page. The new article will simply bee Hoop.
The spit requires some work to keep it within policy and is not that difficult and can be carried out by an established editor. All work by all editors will be respected and all procedures for article splitting will be carried out as methodicaly as possible and not rushed through.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing where I am being aggressive and confrontational here. I am dealing with a separate issue elsewhere and I expect it to be solved elsewhere. I said above, we all have to take responsibility for Haiduc's behaviour. My fault was, I was content to deal with him on my own patch, which at that time was the Solon article. I should have been looking further afield to see what was happening so I could help out elsewhere. There are many issues that have to be considered by this project. Articles within the scope of this project offered Haiduc unique opportunities to spread the gospel of pederasty, since he could exploit ancient sources that paint a pretty picture of the subject and he could berate other editors who resisted his edits because they could see where he was headed. We need ideas about how to deal with that situation in future. Pederasty is part of the historical record and it must be mentioned where it is relevant but not in such a way as to promote it as a lifestyle choice. I mentioned above also the possibility of designing a gateway article to the subject of pederasty, where other projects could link into the subject of pederasty in a way that prevents readers being assailed with graphic images. They could then follow the gateway links to research further, if they want. Haiduc was using the Hoops article with links to the same confronting image - a classical brainwashing technique, especially for young readers. We also have to decide on a collective approach to articles created by Haiduc. A special project sounds appropriate. Amphitryoniades ( talk) 02:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Pederasty is not a lifestyle. It was not so for the ancients and to believe anyone here has been campaigning against such is not based on fact.
There are others that have a different "View" of the history of Greek, Roman and revival pederstic educational relationships. Some take a very philosophic approach and others a more practical and direct approach. But whether we like it or not many people feel strongly that there is indeed a pederastic promotive effort by some members of the Wikipedia community and some wish to deal with that by keeping an eye on certain articles and some by actively working through as many of the edits and articles as possible. My problem with the member was that he didn't work well with community and that is a lesson we should all take a hard look at.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Pederasty is NOT a lifestyle. It is not legal in ANY English Country. Noone is attacking a lifestyle. What may be true is that you wish others to agree that pederasty IS a lifestyle. But, this is not a consensus issue.
A lifestyle is defined as choice. I may be gay without choice, but my lifestyle is. I choose to live the "Lifestyle" of a gay man by living in a samesex relationship. Children do not have the capacity to make these choices either legally or maturely enough to make informed decisions. Over the age of 18 and you may still have a pederastic relationship but you cannot live it as a lifestyle....because the younger one will age out of the pederastic age definition, plain and simple. So in order to continue any kind of pederastic lifestyle you would have to continue new relationships specifically geared at a specific age and well....most people call that a predator.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with nearly everything you have stated except for a few things. A lifestyle as I understand how you define it is not a choice, but it is. I am not talking about anything that is unable to be altered, such as the attraction or the need to satisfy a sexual urge, but as far as a "Lifestyle" it is something that is choosen. That is the very deffinition of lifestyle. One cannot have a pederastic lifestyle, not just because it is not legal. I stated that because iot is not and is but one good reason....but again a lifestyle cannot be choosen by the younger if they are not old enough to make these decisions. An As I said to keep having relationship after relationship with a certain age group is not lifestyle it is a fetish. The Greek Lifestyle may have included pederasty but it was not the main emphasis. But the most important thing I can reply to is your comment about "historical study of human customs". There is no moral objection to pederasty as a subject or an article as long as it, like any other article, is not pushing personal agendas that use references to stretch facts and promote something that is not accurate.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
There are opinions all over the internet and fighting against agendas is what many on wiki do. To keep the encyclopedia honest and accurate.
I could care less about anyone here who may think I have a problem of fear because I will not tolerate a blurring of pedophelia and pederasty. I have not imposed a modern value, but it appears that some hear would rather blast those who do not tolerate the use of historic wiki pages for political or social agendas beyond the facts as supported by references. No one has the right to tell another member to stay out of articles and that shows more about the one making such an outrageousde demand then any fingure pointing and labeling.
I have never placed a modern value on an ancient culture. That is simply not true. The amount of research I have given to the subject shows that many are making huge leaps themselves about both what a pederast is and what a pedophile is. I believe people are trying to hard to think of them in similar terms and that is what is incorrect. But there are still those that use these articles as supposition and essay like articles to further what they believe is true as well....but relying on either no inline citations or misleading refernces. I don't care about axieties about the subjects. Not from those living in fear of touching something that is too far removed from themselves or about the fears of morality. Morality has no issue here. History does, so please spare me the reverse morality of telling anyone what they should believe or understand in regards to these subjects. Keep them factual and referenced and there should be no problem as long as other peoples standards are not being pushed against consensus.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I just created a category Category:Ancient Roman antiquarians meant to contain scholars in antiquity (most notably Varro and Pliny the Elder) who wrote works that deal substantially with antiquarian topics. It is a subcategory of Antiquarians (not of Category:Latin writers). Currently, the category is inhabited only by scholars who wrote Latin; however, the antiquarian of ancient Rome who might come to mind next is Plutarch, since his Roman Questions is one of the main works of Roman antiquarianism. Am I likely to raise objections if I place Plutarch in this category? Obviously, he would also belong in a (presently hypothetical) category "Ancient Greek antiquarians."
I might've preferred the wording "Antiquarians of ancient Rome", but when I've pointed out in the past that "Ancient Roman" might be read misleadingly as ethnic in the later Empire, rather than meaning "of ancient Rome," I've been shot down. And actually called deranged. But Plutarch is an example of the kind of ambiguity I mean. Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Well I didn't understand that you wanted to populate the catagory with Roman citzen's Is that what you mean. Did I go over board with my additions?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
What's your thought on Julius Caesar? While he has a great body of written work and he is credited as a writer.....I believe all his work was personal journals and letters that were merely published or copied and preserved. Would you consider him an antiquarian or merely a Latin writer? I would lean towards a simple writer as I am not sure of any factual accounts writen in a perspective that was nuetral enough to be considered a written history from the Caesar as much as the historic impact of the military leader and his strategies. Is that enough?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a valid category, although I'm uncertain how useful it will be for Wikipedia readers. As I think we can see even in this very thread, there are people who know a fair amount about the ancient world who aren't sure what an antiquarian is. Antiquarian doesn't help much, either.
I think Plutarch belongs—if I understand you, you mean for this category to contain ancient authors writing about Roman antiquities regardless of the writer's ethnicity/nationality/native language. --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, let me give it a shot, and then address Akhilleus's useful question about the category's usefulness. I'm taking the words "antiquarian" and "historian" as they are used in the standard literary histories from (as far as I know) all modern periods. An antiquarian wrote on origines, including etymology: why do we do what we do? In this sense, Plutarch's Roman Questions is the ultimate work of Roman antiquarianism: "Why do the Luperci sacrifice a dog?" … Is it because … ?" An antiquarian work is anecdotal, but doesn't present a grand Thucydidean narrative. Historians, particularly Livy, may deal with antiquarian topics (and cannot avoid them in the early history of Rome; for the Greeks, ditto Herodotus at the beginning of his Histories), but ancient historiography as a genre is about war and politics, not daily life. An antiquarian is more like a folklorist than historian. They typically write on language usage, religion, medical lore (though not on medicine systematically like Celsus or Galen), and customs.
Varro is an antiquarian. His works on language and religion were concerned with origines and the details of lore. Writers who obsess about the precise nature of how the Romans borrowed customs from the Etruscans are antiquarians, like Nigidius Figulus. Aulus Gellius is an antiquarian, folklorist, and encyclopedist, emphatically not an historian. This is a question of literary genre, not how we view the content as "belonging to the past." Both history and antiquarianism belong to the past; but they are not the same literary genre. Reviewing the category now, I see that all the historians have been placed there; I'm removing those. Cassius Dio is not an antiquarian, nor is Appian. Sallust is the opposite of an antiquarian, as far as I can see; though of course we don't have his full histories, his Bellum Catilinae deals with history in living memory, and he is not at all interested in the minutiae of temple decor and how it got there. Again, in terms of literary genre, it's how they construct their work. HIstorians write long analytical narratives about war and politics. In modern literature, something like "The Cultural History of Salt" is a hybrid; Gellius might have a few chapters on "The Cultural History of Cherries", but this wouldn't have been considered historia in antiquity, and is not classed by modern scholars as Roman historiography.
In answer to Akhilleus, I'm not sure there is a good distinction between an antiquarian and an encyclopedist or a folklorist, so I would entertain an argument of redundancy there. I had noticed that I regularly identified certain scholars as "antiquarians," because that's that they were called in my sources, and that there was a clear pattern in the type of writing they did — that is, it tended toward an anecdotal, discrete structure, not the grand overall narratives of the historians (which are indeed chronological as noted by Haploidavey, though sometimes containing 'flashbacks' to provide a causa; works of antiquarianism are arranged by topic, not overall chronology). So I looked up the category "Antiquarians" and found that it was thoroughly subdivided into "Antiquarians by nationality"; therefore, just categorizing my Roman antiquarians under "Antiquarians" wouldn't do, because that wasn't standard practice for the category.
I thought the question about Dio and Appian above was whether they should be categorized as Roman historians (because they wrote in Greek), not whether they were antiquarians. (I believe the category for them is Category:Roman era Greek historians.) Plutarch is the only figure I can think of at the moment who is both historian (in the Lives) and antiquarian. Josephus wrote Jewish Antiquities, of course, but I'm not familiar enough with the work to know whether it was organized as a history, or was an antiquarian collection of stuff. If you read a book of Livy and a book of Aulus Gellius side by side, the difference between historical narrative and antiquarian incrementalism is clear. Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Now I understand exactly what your intentions were! LOL! OK....I wonder than if we would need more than the single catagory unless what you are wanting at the tmoment is to center specificaly on the one catagory.
The additions popping up were mine. But since some may not be in the actual spirit of the catagory anyone of them can easily be removed. If you want me to do so, just let me know which ones. Could you add some prose on the catagory page to clarify and narrow more specificaly which figures from ancient times you are attempting to catagorize since the title is a little vague.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It isn't a deal at all. It's just something you brought to the project and now people want to participate in the spirit of what your doing. I had questions myself for clarification and a discussion is great as far as I am concerned.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 01:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Recently the article Achaeans was moved to Achaeans (Homer), there is a discussion about it here: Talk:Achaeans (Homer)#Recent movement. Paul August ☎ 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Can someone versed in basic Latin and classical Greek take a look at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant and advise?
Its a fairly basic question of translation, but I'm not a classical linguist.
Thanks!
FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Comparison between Roman and Han Empires has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 08:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
A discussion on the talk page of this article contemplates reducing the article to a stub, because it was edited by a now-banned editor, named in sections above. Any interested parties are invited to discuss at Talk:Pederasty in ancient Greece. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed some guidelines for addressing the considerable problems posed by trying to improve pederasty in ancient Greece. I'm calling for editors, particularly experienced, moderate editors with no special interest in the topic, to edit these guidelines into a form we can accept as consensus on how to proceed. Go here if you can spare a few minutes to help. Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to call attention to a renaming proposal (not my initiative) that affects several categories pertaining to this project. It's very minor: changing "Ancient Rome" to "ancient Rome". It's my understanding — please correct if I'm wrong — that the lowercase represents the preferred WP style. I accidentally violated this in naming a category and was too lazy to go through the rigamarole to fix it. So give it a yea or nay to move it along if you have a minute: it's here. Cynwolfe ( talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Evidently there's no such thing as a minor issue on Wikipedia. Every fight must be to the death. The issue of whether it should be "ancient Rome" or "Ancient Rome" in the name of categories is unresolved. It was suggested that we G&R pinheads talk about it on this page. (No doubt so that we can present our consensus, and then be shot down by people who have never actually provided any content pertaining to antiquity.) Please confine yourself in this section to the ancient/Ancient question. Here are thoughts, based on the discussion from the renaming proposal, to give you something to throw darts at.
To refresh your memory, see renaming proposal. Cynwolfe ( talk) 13:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Expert attention would be welcome at Talk:Lucius Cornelius Balbus (minor) - what name should he be given?-- Kotniski ( talk) 11:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
An article called Glossary of ancient Roman religion was recently created. There is some disagreement over its title, content and purpose. Help is sought for the article's development. Haploidavey ( talk) 10:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a dispute currently going on at Trojan War that members of this project might want to contribute to. Some editors believe the article should have a Template:Infobox Military Conflict, so the article will have a box at the top telling readers such "facts" as 866000 Greeks fought against 676000 Trojans. Other editors, including me, think the infobox is inappropriate, because it implies that the war is a historical event with known troop strengths and commanders; the Trojan War is, of course, a mythological conflict, though of course the stories about it may preserve some historical memories of the Bronze Age. Please give an opinion at Talk:Trojan War#Returning_the_Infobox. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Would someone take a look at the accompanying image? It's used to illustrate Mycenaean Greece. Not only is the provenance dubious ("book scan"), but the tiered skirt and bared breast, as well as citing a fresco as the source, suggests Minoan to me. It may be a modern drawing made from a fresco. Or it may be a total fabrication, and if so, probably under copyright. Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think works of art should be described in as much detail as possible: Museum catalog number if possible, please! I don't know anything about this fresco, but I do know that other reconstructions performed around the same time were highly imaginative... --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, National Museum of Greece 11670, the "Mycenaean Lady". Museum card here. Date of the original is still unclear to me. --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Here she is in AJA 1911. However, this just raises more questions; in reference to what is "Fig. 6" in the journal, the text says "there are parts of a larger fresco representing a woman cup-bearer", implying that the drawing is a reconstruction of the "highly imaginative" sort — it asserts the totality of this fresco to an extent that's probably misleading. This reminded me of Mary Beard's piece in the NYRB a few months back (this goes along with what you were saying, Akhilleus). At any rate, the image file needs to be described better. I've done my good deed for the Greeks this week and need to get back to Rome, so I hope one of you can tend to this. Cynwolfe ( talk) 03:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend the
Backstage Pass event at the
British Museum. It was part of a wider project of engagement with Wikipedia (see
WP:GLAM/BM) that has seen them take on a temporary Wikipedian In Residence,
User:Witty lama. They see Wikipedia as sharing many of their aims, and they want to encourage involvement by Wikipedians with the museum, and vice versa. They have even offered 5 prizes of £100 at the BM shop for
featured articles on BM topics - in any language, including Italian and Greek, even Latin I guess!
Most Wikipedians probably don't know that the BM has curators dedicated to answering phone/email questions about their specialist areas, and most of their department libraries welcome visitors doing bona fide research - and they now seem to recognise that editing Wikipedia articles, especially about items in the BM's collections, counts for those purposes. I know that the first question most people will have is "Can we have images of all their stuff?" and I'd just ask people to be patient on that front. Let's just say that the museum are well aware of our hopes there, there are staff who see advantages to the museum in doing something, and it's being discussed at the highest level. On the other hand it's a very complex area that needs to be handled diplomatically. Literally in some cases - foreign governments can get very touchy about the dissemination of images of artifacts relating to their cultural history, and the museum needs to respect those concerns.
So for the moment the focus is on using the BM's huge resources of books, expertise etc to improve article content, and hopefully that will include articles being peer-reviewed by BM staff. Some of them are quite nervous about doing stuff on Wikipedia, a mixture of fear of professional ridicule, nervousness about the technical aspects, stories of rapid reverts of good-faith edits and just general culture shock - it's a very different world to the one they come from. So I'd ask everyone to look after any BM people that you see around the place, Wikipedia can gain a lot from their involvement and it would be a shame if they're discouraged for any reason.
As I mentioned above,
WP:GLAM/BM is the clearing house for the BM's involvement with Wikipedia, and I suggest that further questions/comments are directed there.
Le Deluge (
talk) 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear all,
As part of the ongoing collaboration with the British Museum I'm pleased to inform you of the latest activity that also happens to fall within your area of interest - all about the
Hoxne Hoard. You can find out about the project at
Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Hoxne_challenge but suffice it to say the idea is to bring together all the world experts on a subject, and all of their published sources and to try to see just how good a quality an article can be produced in a short amount of time. We call it the "
Hoxne Challenge". If you'd like to get involved - you know what to do! :-)
Witty
Lama 19:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Daedalus and Icarus WERE NOT exiled by king Minos. If they had been exiled, they wouldn't need to build wings. They would have been thrown out. Daedalus was prohibited from ever leaving the island of Crete (although offered every privilege and luxury possible) because he knew the secrets of the labyrinth.
It is really irritating when people make up their own versions of the myths. These diversions change the meaning, effect, symbolism completely. Because of the dynamic nature of myth, such changes are more than irresponsible. I wonder why the Icarus article is semi-protected. Is it because it is so correct? Please!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edopera ( talk • contribs) 1 July 2010
Does anybody know a good word (or short way of saying) 'someone who writes a calendar'? Chronographer? "Chronography" redirects to "chronology," which to me isn't the same thing. There are a number of minor figures in antiquity and the early medieval period who aren't really known for much of anything else but producing fasti or a computus or such and who don't seem to fit in an existing category that I've seen, except for Category:Chronologists. Is that a good-enough place for these guys? And (to complicate matters) does that mean Ovid belongs in that category, because he wrote a work that took calendar form? Or Spenser, for The Shepheardes Calender? Cynwolfe ( talk) 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State church of the Roman Empire (formerly Roman imperial church. Johnbod ( talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Include or not: Talk:List of ancient monoliths#Mausoleum of Theodoric. Thanks Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Nono64 has made the following changes:
This struck me as utterly otiose. When I went to his talk page, I saw notices from other users making similar complaints. I intend to undo the Orosius changes, unless members of this project think the changes make sense. I would also like to make a formal complaint about the user. I've never done such a thing, and wonder whether someone could suggest the most appropriate way to go about it. Cynwolfe ( talk) 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Though I know this is an oft debated issue ...
There is some ongoing and fairly unpleasant debate going on at Talk:State church of the Roman Empire (formerly Roman Imperial Church). A great deal of the debate centers around what was really the Roman Empire at any given point in history and what is the right way for Wikipedia articles to talk about Roman entities and non-Roman entities. I have asserted on that talk page that those sorts of discussions are really beyond the scope of the article (these questions affect far more than that article). As such I am redirecting that part of the discussion here. If there are any essays or previous discussions that are particularly relevant please feel free to share.
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 17:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Would someone care to enlighten the present discussion at Talk:List of wars between democracies, at which the latest entrant is insisting that the Greeks didn't have democracy, they had representative government? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have written a comment on the introduction to 'Migration Period', and also tried to submit a rephrasing, which unfortunately got reverted . Even though the article is not listed on the 'WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome', it is dealing with the same period, and to some extent the same geography, as that of Classics . In the article for 'Classics' the period of Late Antiquity is given as ca. AD 300-600, and the 'Migration Period'-article use AD 300-700 . Hopefully I have raised your curiosity . The comment is at the talk-page Talk:Migration_Period#Critical comments to the intro, and a draft is here -> User:Sechinsic/migration01 . Sechinsic ( talk) 10:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
These probably make perfect sense and I've just gone daft, but what's with these categories? Julius Caesar is now in the category "Deaf people" and Cicero is a "trope theorist." A quick search for "deaf" or "hear" in the Julius Caesar article failed to turn up a reference that would explain this. I suppose one could consider Cicero a 'trope theorist,' but since there's no article Trope theory, I may not even know what it is. Moreover, the word 'trope' doesn't appear in the article, which would be nice if it's important to categorize him as such. Tomorrow, I'm expecting Augustus to become a Model Airplane Hobbyist. Mommy, where do baby categories come from? How do you verify them? Cynwolfe ( talk) 04:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I've solved the mystery of Caesar's alleged deafness, and will post to Julius Caesar. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Wikipedia actually has a project designated for reporting pederastic activity. I had reported Haiduc for a number of issues but they declined to intervene. The fact is, we as a group are limited to what actions we can take and that may be for the best. But the real problems created by agenda driven editors is the problem that faces the members here.
How to best deal with articles is to work together and not to attempt to overstep our boundaries as members and not move so quickly as to become a concern to others as well. I also believe we have to listen to all the cautions of those that may not agree even if, in the long run, consensus is against them. Reactionary editing can be as bad as agenda driven editing and that is a criticism we must be aware of.
Having said that, I believe consensus has been reached for the page split and I have begun work to do just that. A
has been placed on the article and the disambiguation page has been properly moved to the correct title for that page. The new article will simply bee Hoop.
The spit requires some work to keep it within policy and is not that difficult and can be carried out by an established editor. All work by all editors will be respected and all procedures for article splitting will be carried out as methodicaly as possible and not rushed through.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing where I am being aggressive and confrontational here. I am dealing with a separate issue elsewhere and I expect it to be solved elsewhere. I said above, we all have to take responsibility for Haiduc's behaviour. My fault was, I was content to deal with him on my own patch, which at that time was the Solon article. I should have been looking further afield to see what was happening so I could help out elsewhere. There are many issues that have to be considered by this project. Articles within the scope of this project offered Haiduc unique opportunities to spread the gospel of pederasty, since he could exploit ancient sources that paint a pretty picture of the subject and he could berate other editors who resisted his edits because they could see where he was headed. We need ideas about how to deal with that situation in future. Pederasty is part of the historical record and it must be mentioned where it is relevant but not in such a way as to promote it as a lifestyle choice. I mentioned above also the possibility of designing a gateway article to the subject of pederasty, where other projects could link into the subject of pederasty in a way that prevents readers being assailed with graphic images. They could then follow the gateway links to research further, if they want. Haiduc was using the Hoops article with links to the same confronting image - a classical brainwashing technique, especially for young readers. We also have to decide on a collective approach to articles created by Haiduc. A special project sounds appropriate. Amphitryoniades ( talk) 02:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Pederasty is not a lifestyle. It was not so for the ancients and to believe anyone here has been campaigning against such is not based on fact.
There are others that have a different "View" of the history of Greek, Roman and revival pederstic educational relationships. Some take a very philosophic approach and others a more practical and direct approach. But whether we like it or not many people feel strongly that there is indeed a pederastic promotive effort by some members of the Wikipedia community and some wish to deal with that by keeping an eye on certain articles and some by actively working through as many of the edits and articles as possible. My problem with the member was that he didn't work well with community and that is a lesson we should all take a hard look at.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Pederasty is NOT a lifestyle. It is not legal in ANY English Country. Noone is attacking a lifestyle. What may be true is that you wish others to agree that pederasty IS a lifestyle. But, this is not a consensus issue.
A lifestyle is defined as choice. I may be gay without choice, but my lifestyle is. I choose to live the "Lifestyle" of a gay man by living in a samesex relationship. Children do not have the capacity to make these choices either legally or maturely enough to make informed decisions. Over the age of 18 and you may still have a pederastic relationship but you cannot live it as a lifestyle....because the younger one will age out of the pederastic age definition, plain and simple. So in order to continue any kind of pederastic lifestyle you would have to continue new relationships specifically geared at a specific age and well....most people call that a predator.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with nearly everything you have stated except for a few things. A lifestyle as I understand how you define it is not a choice, but it is. I am not talking about anything that is unable to be altered, such as the attraction or the need to satisfy a sexual urge, but as far as a "Lifestyle" it is something that is choosen. That is the very deffinition of lifestyle. One cannot have a pederastic lifestyle, not just because it is not legal. I stated that because iot is not and is but one good reason....but again a lifestyle cannot be choosen by the younger if they are not old enough to make these decisions. An As I said to keep having relationship after relationship with a certain age group is not lifestyle it is a fetish. The Greek Lifestyle may have included pederasty but it was not the main emphasis. But the most important thing I can reply to is your comment about "historical study of human customs". There is no moral objection to pederasty as a subject or an article as long as it, like any other article, is not pushing personal agendas that use references to stretch facts and promote something that is not accurate.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
There are opinions all over the internet and fighting against agendas is what many on wiki do. To keep the encyclopedia honest and accurate.
I could care less about anyone here who may think I have a problem of fear because I will not tolerate a blurring of pedophelia and pederasty. I have not imposed a modern value, but it appears that some hear would rather blast those who do not tolerate the use of historic wiki pages for political or social agendas beyond the facts as supported by references. No one has the right to tell another member to stay out of articles and that shows more about the one making such an outrageousde demand then any fingure pointing and labeling.
I have never placed a modern value on an ancient culture. That is simply not true. The amount of research I have given to the subject shows that many are making huge leaps themselves about both what a pederast is and what a pedophile is. I believe people are trying to hard to think of them in similar terms and that is what is incorrect. But there are still those that use these articles as supposition and essay like articles to further what they believe is true as well....but relying on either no inline citations or misleading refernces. I don't care about axieties about the subjects. Not from those living in fear of touching something that is too far removed from themselves or about the fears of morality. Morality has no issue here. History does, so please spare me the reverse morality of telling anyone what they should believe or understand in regards to these subjects. Keep them factual and referenced and there should be no problem as long as other peoples standards are not being pushed against consensus.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I just created a category Category:Ancient Roman antiquarians meant to contain scholars in antiquity (most notably Varro and Pliny the Elder) who wrote works that deal substantially with antiquarian topics. It is a subcategory of Antiquarians (not of Category:Latin writers). Currently, the category is inhabited only by scholars who wrote Latin; however, the antiquarian of ancient Rome who might come to mind next is Plutarch, since his Roman Questions is one of the main works of Roman antiquarianism. Am I likely to raise objections if I place Plutarch in this category? Obviously, he would also belong in a (presently hypothetical) category "Ancient Greek antiquarians."
I might've preferred the wording "Antiquarians of ancient Rome", but when I've pointed out in the past that "Ancient Roman" might be read misleadingly as ethnic in the later Empire, rather than meaning "of ancient Rome," I've been shot down. And actually called deranged. But Plutarch is an example of the kind of ambiguity I mean. Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Well I didn't understand that you wanted to populate the catagory with Roman citzen's Is that what you mean. Did I go over board with my additions?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
What's your thought on Julius Caesar? While he has a great body of written work and he is credited as a writer.....I believe all his work was personal journals and letters that were merely published or copied and preserved. Would you consider him an antiquarian or merely a Latin writer? I would lean towards a simple writer as I am not sure of any factual accounts writen in a perspective that was nuetral enough to be considered a written history from the Caesar as much as the historic impact of the military leader and his strategies. Is that enough?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a valid category, although I'm uncertain how useful it will be for Wikipedia readers. As I think we can see even in this very thread, there are people who know a fair amount about the ancient world who aren't sure what an antiquarian is. Antiquarian doesn't help much, either.
I think Plutarch belongs—if I understand you, you mean for this category to contain ancient authors writing about Roman antiquities regardless of the writer's ethnicity/nationality/native language. --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, let me give it a shot, and then address Akhilleus's useful question about the category's usefulness. I'm taking the words "antiquarian" and "historian" as they are used in the standard literary histories from (as far as I know) all modern periods. An antiquarian wrote on origines, including etymology: why do we do what we do? In this sense, Plutarch's Roman Questions is the ultimate work of Roman antiquarianism: "Why do the Luperci sacrifice a dog?" … Is it because … ?" An antiquarian work is anecdotal, but doesn't present a grand Thucydidean narrative. Historians, particularly Livy, may deal with antiquarian topics (and cannot avoid them in the early history of Rome; for the Greeks, ditto Herodotus at the beginning of his Histories), but ancient historiography as a genre is about war and politics, not daily life. An antiquarian is more like a folklorist than historian. They typically write on language usage, religion, medical lore (though not on medicine systematically like Celsus or Galen), and customs.
Varro is an antiquarian. His works on language and religion were concerned with origines and the details of lore. Writers who obsess about the precise nature of how the Romans borrowed customs from the Etruscans are antiquarians, like Nigidius Figulus. Aulus Gellius is an antiquarian, folklorist, and encyclopedist, emphatically not an historian. This is a question of literary genre, not how we view the content as "belonging to the past." Both history and antiquarianism belong to the past; but they are not the same literary genre. Reviewing the category now, I see that all the historians have been placed there; I'm removing those. Cassius Dio is not an antiquarian, nor is Appian. Sallust is the opposite of an antiquarian, as far as I can see; though of course we don't have his full histories, his Bellum Catilinae deals with history in living memory, and he is not at all interested in the minutiae of temple decor and how it got there. Again, in terms of literary genre, it's how they construct their work. HIstorians write long analytical narratives about war and politics. In modern literature, something like "The Cultural History of Salt" is a hybrid; Gellius might have a few chapters on "The Cultural History of Cherries", but this wouldn't have been considered historia in antiquity, and is not classed by modern scholars as Roman historiography.
In answer to Akhilleus, I'm not sure there is a good distinction between an antiquarian and an encyclopedist or a folklorist, so I would entertain an argument of redundancy there. I had noticed that I regularly identified certain scholars as "antiquarians," because that's that they were called in my sources, and that there was a clear pattern in the type of writing they did — that is, it tended toward an anecdotal, discrete structure, not the grand overall narratives of the historians (which are indeed chronological as noted by Haploidavey, though sometimes containing 'flashbacks' to provide a causa; works of antiquarianism are arranged by topic, not overall chronology). So I looked up the category "Antiquarians" and found that it was thoroughly subdivided into "Antiquarians by nationality"; therefore, just categorizing my Roman antiquarians under "Antiquarians" wouldn't do, because that wasn't standard practice for the category.
I thought the question about Dio and Appian above was whether they should be categorized as Roman historians (because they wrote in Greek), not whether they were antiquarians. (I believe the category for them is Category:Roman era Greek historians.) Plutarch is the only figure I can think of at the moment who is both historian (in the Lives) and antiquarian. Josephus wrote Jewish Antiquities, of course, but I'm not familiar enough with the work to know whether it was organized as a history, or was an antiquarian collection of stuff. If you read a book of Livy and a book of Aulus Gellius side by side, the difference between historical narrative and antiquarian incrementalism is clear. Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Now I understand exactly what your intentions were! LOL! OK....I wonder than if we would need more than the single catagory unless what you are wanting at the tmoment is to center specificaly on the one catagory.
The additions popping up were mine. But since some may not be in the actual spirit of the catagory anyone of them can easily be removed. If you want me to do so, just let me know which ones. Could you add some prose on the catagory page to clarify and narrow more specificaly which figures from ancient times you are attempting to catagorize since the title is a little vague.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It isn't a deal at all. It's just something you brought to the project and now people want to participate in the spirit of what your doing. I had questions myself for clarification and a discussion is great as far as I am concerned.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 01:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Recently the article Achaeans was moved to Achaeans (Homer), there is a discussion about it here: Talk:Achaeans (Homer)#Recent movement. Paul August ☎ 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Can someone versed in basic Latin and classical Greek take a look at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant and advise?
Its a fairly basic question of translation, but I'm not a classical linguist.
Thanks!
FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Comparison between Roman and Han Empires has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 08:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
A discussion on the talk page of this article contemplates reducing the article to a stub, because it was edited by a now-banned editor, named in sections above. Any interested parties are invited to discuss at Talk:Pederasty in ancient Greece. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed some guidelines for addressing the considerable problems posed by trying to improve pederasty in ancient Greece. I'm calling for editors, particularly experienced, moderate editors with no special interest in the topic, to edit these guidelines into a form we can accept as consensus on how to proceed. Go here if you can spare a few minutes to help. Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to call attention to a renaming proposal (not my initiative) that affects several categories pertaining to this project. It's very minor: changing "Ancient Rome" to "ancient Rome". It's my understanding — please correct if I'm wrong — that the lowercase represents the preferred WP style. I accidentally violated this in naming a category and was too lazy to go through the rigamarole to fix it. So give it a yea or nay to move it along if you have a minute: it's here. Cynwolfe ( talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Evidently there's no such thing as a minor issue on Wikipedia. Every fight must be to the death. The issue of whether it should be "ancient Rome" or "Ancient Rome" in the name of categories is unresolved. It was suggested that we G&R pinheads talk about it on this page. (No doubt so that we can present our consensus, and then be shot down by people who have never actually provided any content pertaining to antiquity.) Please confine yourself in this section to the ancient/Ancient question. Here are thoughts, based on the discussion from the renaming proposal, to give you something to throw darts at.
To refresh your memory, see renaming proposal. Cynwolfe ( talk) 13:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Expert attention would be welcome at Talk:Lucius Cornelius Balbus (minor) - what name should he be given?-- Kotniski ( talk) 11:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
An article called Glossary of ancient Roman religion was recently created. There is some disagreement over its title, content and purpose. Help is sought for the article's development. Haploidavey ( talk) 10:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a dispute currently going on at Trojan War that members of this project might want to contribute to. Some editors believe the article should have a Template:Infobox Military Conflict, so the article will have a box at the top telling readers such "facts" as 866000 Greeks fought against 676000 Trojans. Other editors, including me, think the infobox is inappropriate, because it implies that the war is a historical event with known troop strengths and commanders; the Trojan War is, of course, a mythological conflict, though of course the stories about it may preserve some historical memories of the Bronze Age. Please give an opinion at Talk:Trojan War#Returning_the_Infobox. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Would someone take a look at the accompanying image? It's used to illustrate Mycenaean Greece. Not only is the provenance dubious ("book scan"), but the tiered skirt and bared breast, as well as citing a fresco as the source, suggests Minoan to me. It may be a modern drawing made from a fresco. Or it may be a total fabrication, and if so, probably under copyright. Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think works of art should be described in as much detail as possible: Museum catalog number if possible, please! I don't know anything about this fresco, but I do know that other reconstructions performed around the same time were highly imaginative... --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, National Museum of Greece 11670, the "Mycenaean Lady". Museum card here. Date of the original is still unclear to me. --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Here she is in AJA 1911. However, this just raises more questions; in reference to what is "Fig. 6" in the journal, the text says "there are parts of a larger fresco representing a woman cup-bearer", implying that the drawing is a reconstruction of the "highly imaginative" sort — it asserts the totality of this fresco to an extent that's probably misleading. This reminded me of Mary Beard's piece in the NYRB a few months back (this goes along with what you were saying, Akhilleus). At any rate, the image file needs to be described better. I've done my good deed for the Greeks this week and need to get back to Rome, so I hope one of you can tend to this. Cynwolfe ( talk) 03:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend the
Backstage Pass event at the
British Museum. It was part of a wider project of engagement with Wikipedia (see
WP:GLAM/BM) that has seen them take on a temporary Wikipedian In Residence,
User:Witty lama. They see Wikipedia as sharing many of their aims, and they want to encourage involvement by Wikipedians with the museum, and vice versa. They have even offered 5 prizes of £100 at the BM shop for
featured articles on BM topics - in any language, including Italian and Greek, even Latin I guess!
Most Wikipedians probably don't know that the BM has curators dedicated to answering phone/email questions about their specialist areas, and most of their department libraries welcome visitors doing bona fide research - and they now seem to recognise that editing Wikipedia articles, especially about items in the BM's collections, counts for those purposes. I know that the first question most people will have is "Can we have images of all their stuff?" and I'd just ask people to be patient on that front. Let's just say that the museum are well aware of our hopes there, there are staff who see advantages to the museum in doing something, and it's being discussed at the highest level. On the other hand it's a very complex area that needs to be handled diplomatically. Literally in some cases - foreign governments can get very touchy about the dissemination of images of artifacts relating to their cultural history, and the museum needs to respect those concerns.
So for the moment the focus is on using the BM's huge resources of books, expertise etc to improve article content, and hopefully that will include articles being peer-reviewed by BM staff. Some of them are quite nervous about doing stuff on Wikipedia, a mixture of fear of professional ridicule, nervousness about the technical aspects, stories of rapid reverts of good-faith edits and just general culture shock - it's a very different world to the one they come from. So I'd ask everyone to look after any BM people that you see around the place, Wikipedia can gain a lot from their involvement and it would be a shame if they're discouraged for any reason.
As I mentioned above,
WP:GLAM/BM is the clearing house for the BM's involvement with Wikipedia, and I suggest that further questions/comments are directed there.
Le Deluge (
talk) 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear all,
As part of the ongoing collaboration with the British Museum I'm pleased to inform you of the latest activity that also happens to fall within your area of interest - all about the
Hoxne Hoard. You can find out about the project at
Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Hoxne_challenge but suffice it to say the idea is to bring together all the world experts on a subject, and all of their published sources and to try to see just how good a quality an article can be produced in a short amount of time. We call it the "
Hoxne Challenge". If you'd like to get involved - you know what to do! :-)
Witty
Lama 19:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Daedalus and Icarus WERE NOT exiled by king Minos. If they had been exiled, they wouldn't need to build wings. They would have been thrown out. Daedalus was prohibited from ever leaving the island of Crete (although offered every privilege and luxury possible) because he knew the secrets of the labyrinth.
It is really irritating when people make up their own versions of the myths. These diversions change the meaning, effect, symbolism completely. Because of the dynamic nature of myth, such changes are more than irresponsible. I wonder why the Icarus article is semi-protected. Is it because it is so correct? Please!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edopera ( talk • contribs) 1 July 2010
Does anybody know a good word (or short way of saying) 'someone who writes a calendar'? Chronographer? "Chronography" redirects to "chronology," which to me isn't the same thing. There are a number of minor figures in antiquity and the early medieval period who aren't really known for much of anything else but producing fasti or a computus or such and who don't seem to fit in an existing category that I've seen, except for Category:Chronologists. Is that a good-enough place for these guys? And (to complicate matters) does that mean Ovid belongs in that category, because he wrote a work that took calendar form? Or Spenser, for The Shepheardes Calender? Cynwolfe ( talk) 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State church of the Roman Empire (formerly Roman imperial church. Johnbod ( talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Include or not: Talk:List of ancient monoliths#Mausoleum of Theodoric. Thanks Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Nono64 has made the following changes:
This struck me as utterly otiose. When I went to his talk page, I saw notices from other users making similar complaints. I intend to undo the Orosius changes, unless members of this project think the changes make sense. I would also like to make a formal complaint about the user. I've never done such a thing, and wonder whether someone could suggest the most appropriate way to go about it. Cynwolfe ( talk) 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Though I know this is an oft debated issue ...
There is some ongoing and fairly unpleasant debate going on at Talk:State church of the Roman Empire (formerly Roman Imperial Church). A great deal of the debate centers around what was really the Roman Empire at any given point in history and what is the right way for Wikipedia articles to talk about Roman entities and non-Roman entities. I have asserted on that talk page that those sorts of discussions are really beyond the scope of the article (these questions affect far more than that article). As such I am redirecting that part of the discussion here. If there are any essays or previous discussions that are particularly relevant please feel free to share.
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 17:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Would someone care to enlighten the present discussion at Talk:List of wars between democracies, at which the latest entrant is insisting that the Greeks didn't have democracy, they had representative government? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have written a comment on the introduction to 'Migration Period', and also tried to submit a rephrasing, which unfortunately got reverted . Even though the article is not listed on the 'WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome', it is dealing with the same period, and to some extent the same geography, as that of Classics . In the article for 'Classics' the period of Late Antiquity is given as ca. AD 300-600, and the 'Migration Period'-article use AD 300-700 . Hopefully I have raised your curiosity . The comment is at the talk-page Talk:Migration_Period#Critical comments to the intro, and a draft is here -> User:Sechinsic/migration01 . Sechinsic ( talk) 10:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
These probably make perfect sense and I've just gone daft, but what's with these categories? Julius Caesar is now in the category "Deaf people" and Cicero is a "trope theorist." A quick search for "deaf" or "hear" in the Julius Caesar article failed to turn up a reference that would explain this. I suppose one could consider Cicero a 'trope theorist,' but since there's no article Trope theory, I may not even know what it is. Moreover, the word 'trope' doesn't appear in the article, which would be nice if it's important to categorize him as such. Tomorrow, I'm expecting Augustus to become a Model Airplane Hobbyist. Mommy, where do baby categories come from? How do you verify them? Cynwolfe ( talk) 04:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I've solved the mystery of Caesar's alleged deafness, and will post to Julius Caesar. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)