Talk:Jupiter (god)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

misleading info in lede

The introductory section was preoccupied with genealogical material; genealogies often differ depending on the tradition (Greek, Roman, "Orphic," etc.), and these were misleading. The sources were of poor quality, and this WP preoccupation with describing the "family" relations of the gods misses the point. Moreover, see Mars (mythology)#Birth: Ovid says plainly that Mars was not the son of Jupiter, but of Juno alone, and I've been unable to find a source that says otherwise. Hesiod, however, says Ares was the son of Zeus and Hera.

Many mythology handbooks pass along erroneous information about Roman deities because they assume that everything that's said about the "equivalent" Greek deity is also true of the Roman god. (In some cases, they bizarrely assume the reverse too.) There's ample high-quality scholarship online that analyze the ancient sources, and actually cites them specifically. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert date format back to BC/AD

I propose that the date format for this article be reverted back to BC/AD since no discussion of date format change was put onto the talk page. This means that there was a violation of WP:ERA which says "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." As no reason or consensus was visibly given, I feel that the revert is necessary to ensure that the policy is adhered to without fail.

Respond to the above anonymous comment: I looked through the article's history from its beginning; this diff seems to be the point at which content with a date was first added. The era convention used is BC. The date is 8 February 2006. I know there are people who for reasons I will never comprehend care deeply about banishing BC/AD (after, BCE/BC takes the same point of transition), but WP:ERA does not condone an arbitrary change of era in an article of longstanding usage. Having tested my tolerance for tedium searching through the edit history, I hope someone else will take care of this. (As a side note, there is an editor who contributes regularly to topics of Roman religion who sometimes slips and uses the Italian era abbreviations; this is no big deal, but when these are detected, they should be corrected to whichever English era convention is in use in the article, not to the individual preference of the editor who notices the slip.) Cynwolfe (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah

shouldn't someone mention that Jove in latin is "ovah", which became Jehovah = YHWH + Jove ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.170.219 (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted this claim, rather than tagged it. If you've a reliable source for this, please consider posting it here - but see also the Jehovah article. (Apologies for my barely literate edit-summary at the article history - I can barely see what I'm writing this a.m.) Haploidavey (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Besides the fact that "ovah" isn't anybody's idea of Latin. Varro, for instance, seems to represent Jehovah as IAO, and to make the identification with Jove. But this is Varro's attempt to make sense of the god of the Jews in Roman terms: this is standard Roman operating procedure, to attempt to understand and embrace the gods of others by finding common ground with their own. It is a point of Roman theology, not, one cannot emphasize strongly enough, "evidence" of anything about religious history pertaining to beliefs about either god. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

the J is silent and ove is pronounced hova, this is latin. thus from YHWH + Jove we get Jehovah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.166.83 (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah comes from putting the reverse vowels for Adonai (Hebrew is written right to left, so the vowel points are always 'backward' to a Latin script reader) over 'YHWH' and transliterating it to English/Dutch/German. This nonsense about Jove might come from the fact that the common Hebrew form 'Yahweh reads 'Jahve' when transliterated into English, and the two sound similar in English pronunciation. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Jupiter

I have restored this page to the English spelling. Yes, English derives it from Renaissance Latin, not Augustan inscriptions; but this is a point that should be made in the article, not by the title. (It might be WP:BEANS to point out that the normal inscriptional spelling would be Ivppiter.) It is our business to communicate with anglophones, most of whom don't know Latin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Why this difference?

I am very disappointed at reading this article. I was editing Diana and glanced at the articles on Artemis and the temple of A. which are much more substantial. Here Jupiter is barely mentioned without any real attempts at looking into his theology, cult, worship... It looks Greek issues enjoy much more study and attention. No explanation of Optimus, that of Feretrius is questionable even if referenced: F. from feretrum, in turn from fero.cf. Festus, = Grabovius, who is taken around on a litter. Feralis, Feralia days of mourning from carrying coffins or offers to the dead etc.

I may try to edit something if I have time: the list of epithets is interesting. Did Thulin add an explanation? Not certain it is right though. Elicius he who frees the waters (cf. Indra).Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do so. The article is labeled as needing immediate attention and is included in both the Wikiproject Mythology and WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome lists of articles that need attention. Jupiter is also an important god. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have done some reading but I need to find more secondary sources.

The article purports some views that are biased not to say wrong such as that J. became a god of war. In fact J. is a sovereign god, the protector of the community and as such interested in every aspect of its life: war was just one, J. was interested in the magic aspect of victory-Victoria because of his nature of sovereign. His naturalistic aspect has been overshadowed by his political relevance manifested through his auspices however it was well testified in the epithets preserved by Augustine and in the taboos observed by his flamen.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Good luck. LittleJerry (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What is Rocking

There is mention of the rite of rocking, and one presumes that this means using a swing but the reference is in Latin.

List of epithets

Has anybody got access to the RE? This list is almost exhaustive, but as Wetman wrote, without the context it is of little use. Of course other works discuss some of them, however many interesting ones are found only here.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

some problems

Its great that this article is being expanded but some of the text is difficult to read and understand. For example in the political history section it says "some character of Roman history incurred in this fault and were punished for it according to the seriousness of their guilt: Manlius Capitolinus and Furius Camillus". Perhaps a better way of putting it would be "For eample Manlius Capitolinus and Furius Camillus, both had made such claims to kingship and were punished based seriousness of their guilt." Wiki articles need to be written so the layman can understood. 96.35.124.13 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestion, I wrote in a hurry and moreover my native tongue is not English.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Epithets

As the list given in the RE is instructive as such I would like to include it in the article even without comment. I am waiting for feedback. If nobody objects I shall include it soon. Hoping to find a secondary source that analyses them one by one.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Article

I finshed editing, some refinement, addition and citations apart. Feedback welcome!Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What about the archaic triad section and the Capitoline triad subsection? 96.35.124.13 (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I overlooked this. I shall complete soon.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Now it is complete. Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Dear 96...: the Ingres is artically opprobrious and conceptually a nihil, thus I decided to remove it and substitute it with Giorgione's "The Tempest" that is a wonderful depiction of the workings of Jupiter according to quite a few scholars. Pls. abstain from changing my eidts without previous discussion from now on. Thanks.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr A., just popping in here a moment. As you know, I support the removal of the Ingres and its replacement with the Giorgione, for the reasons given at your talk-page. I'll just copypaste Cyn's suggested text as support. If you've not done so already, you'll need to cite the scholarly sources that support this interpretation. Haploidavey (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not know many things: 1. How to write the caption, i. e. precisely where to write it. I wrote my idea of it on Cynwolf's talk page. I posted Giorgione yesterday and was it removed... 2. Where to give the scholarly citations that are needed. 3. What text do you wish to copypaste? 4. What is difference between it and the citations you say are required? Thank you for the attention. And pls. do omit that Mr. ...!Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, have attended to those things as best as I can - d'you approve? - and from henceforth, I shall address you strictly as Aldrasto11. Haploidavey (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It is fine... and A. shall suffice.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

By Jove!

Joseph Conrad often says in his stories about seamen etc. 'by Jove!'. Is that something only sailors and such said? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place for such inquiries; ^{but I've answered at your talk-page.} Haploidavey (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

'Excessive detail' tag

Although I respect the amount of scholarship that went into the major revision of this article, I agree with the tag that an IP placed on the article. Since a major mythological figure is likely to be of interest to beginners just learning about Roman myth and religion, it would probably be a good idea to streamline and simplify it for ease of use and readability. I would suggest that perhaps the extensive exploration of epithets, for instance, could be the basis of an independent article. I would be glad to help with this (in the near future; not immediately) if there's a consensus. Might be worth a notice at the relevant WikiProjects, to get some views. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Another possible "spinoff" would be "Archaic theology of Iuppiter" or some such. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cynwolfe about offloading "Epithets of Jupiter," and I'd add that the section of "Jupiter outside of Rome" might join it on the new page, with only a summary statement in this article that Jupiter had many cult epithets, local titles, etc. Wareh (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I also tend to agree that the epithets section is probably unnecessary. I very clearly acknowledge that this particular subject, given his status as chief of the gods, probably deserves several articles. In addition to some articles about the most important individual myths relating to him, I could definitely see articles about Jupiter in art, Jupiter in politics (particularly Greco-Roman), Jupiter and architecture, and, in some cases, maybe, specific articles about Jupiter's relations with other mythic figures. The members of the specific projects relating directly to art, politics, architectre, and suchlike might be the best people to consult about the notability and likely content of articles on those more focused subjects. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this thoroughly hard-worked general article has burgeoned into content areas unlikely to interest general readers. Most will be after the clearest possible account of Jupiter and his cult(s), and are likely to give up when faced by the oft murky, challenging intricacies of scholarly speculation and debate. I feel such material is best transferred to footnotes, or to other articles. Some sections - and I'm thinking here of those on J's many and complex relationships with other deities - seem longer, better cited, more detailed, and possibly better informed but also a deal more taxing than most main articles on Roman deities. As with the list of Epithets, some of that material can be summarised here. Some could be used to expand other articles. And I agree that the epithets could be hived off; perhaps in list format, like the Glossary of ancient Roman religion and List of Roman deities. Haploidavey (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the issues discussed above, the article needs a stronger structure. Currently, we've some unnecessary repetitions. One example is to the fore; "Jupiter and the state", a sketchy, summary treatment imported from Religion in ancient Rome (IIRC) has its content expanded in two further sections; "Jupiter in the political history of Rome", and "Triumph". At this stage (and much as I dislike armchair criticism) I've nothing more useful to offer. Haploidavey (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I read the the links given in the tag and I feel they do not concern the content of this article. BTW the tag was first added by an anonymous unknown IP who wrote the article is 99% OR...!!! Now others endorse his views...

I asked for the opinion of readers before adding the list given in the RE (folks, just read this page above, please) and nobody til now objected ( look at the dates). The list is long but I thought it might be informative and instructive. There is no understanding of the theology of a Roman god without digging into his epithets (at least the principal ones), as even Augustine acknowledged in the case of Jupiter for he too gave a list of 11. If it is felt that the list of the RE is too much it can be removed, but not the section on the epithets without diminishing the general informativeness.

The article is divided into sections and I think readers can pick and choose what they are after. WP is not for children either and this is an article on the main god of Roman religion, not on myhtology. I already complained about this misdefinition with Davey but he replied this is a convention agreed upon in WP and as such untouchable. However it is clear from all the articles I edit that it is wrong and misleading to label Greek and Roman religion as mythology. They were in fact quite simply a religion as any other one.

I do not think there is any need of creating other articles, say on the Epithets of Jupiter, let alone the Archaic theology of Jupiter: the theology never changed in fact. Again readers can choose what they may wish to read from the menu. I do agree the sections on political scope of the god need to be restructured and this is a quite easy task. Relationship with other gods is difficult to place elsewhere as the core of everything is still Jupiter. In time I may try to simplify a bit the presentation, though.

If Wiseman wrote anything relevant on Jupiter's mythology: why not discuss the issue here or directly edit the section?Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice the "99% OR" passing comment until you pointed it out. I don't take it seriously, and no-one here has mentioned it. The article's only been tagged for issues of detail. The "Jupiter (mythology)" business is unfortunate; though it's not set in stone by any means, it arose way back, and has been propagated here, there and - well, just click on the "what links here" button. The list is gargantuan. Do you seriously want to deal with it? I don't. Life's too short.

Splitting of dense, long or unwieldy articles is usual Wikipedia practice, for several reasons. I don't think articles should aim to address only particular readers, and exclude others. Note the exact wording of the tag (plus my bolding): "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience". I daresay most readers - of all ages and backgrounds - will be motivated by casual curiosity and read no further than the Introduction. Some will read further, and a few will read further still. But the article's "menu" and sheer quantity of text seem intimidating at a glance - even to me. It offers too much. Various solutions have been suggested above - and whatever happens, none of your content need be lost. Haploidavey (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Excised list

Epithet list

List of epithets in the Pauly Real Encyclopädie (1890) p. 1142-1144 compiled by Carl Olof Thulin:

• Adventus O. M. (arrival, birth)
• Aetetus O. M.
• Almus
• Amaranus
• Anxurus ("of Anxur, now Terracina")
• Appenninus ("of the Appennines")
• Arcanus (protector of the arca, arcane: at Praeneste)
• Balmarcodes O. M.
• Beellefarus
• Bronton (thundering)
• Cacunus
• Caelestis O. M. (Heavenly)
• Caelus O. M.
• Capitolinus O. M. ("of the Capitol")
• Casius ("of Mount Casius"; worshipped at Antiochia)
• Ciminius (of Mount Ciminus, now Mount Cimino)
• Clitumnus (of river Clitumnus)
• Cohortalis O. M.
• Conservator ("preserver")
• Culminalis O. M.
• Cultor ("cultivator")
• Custos ("protector, warden")
• Damascenus O. M. ("of Damascus)
• Dapalis (from daps: dinner, banquet)
• Defensor O. M.
• Depulsor O. M.
• Depulsorius O. M.
• Dianus
• Dolichenus ("of Dolichus"; it is the ancient Teshub of the Hittites)
• Domesticus
• Diovis
• Elicius (who sends forth, elicits)
• Epulo (who gives or takes part in banquets)
• Exsuperantissimus O. M.
• Fagutalis (of the Fagutal: the god had a temple near an old oak there)
• Farreus (from the confarreatio, according to Wissowa and Dumézil.)
• Feretrius (who is carried around or whom spoils are carried to on a frame or litter)
• Fidius (fusion with Dius Fidius)
• Flagius (worshipped at Cuma)
• Frugifer (who bears fruits)
• Fulgur
• Fulgurator
• Fulmen
• Fulminator
• Grabovius (in the Iguvine Tables: who is carried around on a cerimonial litter, from Etruscan crapis cerimonial litter)
• Hammon O. M. (worshipped in the oasis of Siwa)
• Heliopolitanus (of Heliopolis, present day Baalbek)
• Hercius
• Imbricitor (who soaks in rainwater)
• Impulsor
• Indiges (later the divine identification of Aeneas)
• Inventor
• Invictus
• Iurarius (of oaths)
• Iutor (benefictor, beneficient)
• Iuventas
• Lapis (flintstone: the f. sends sparkles similar to lightning)
• Latiaris
• Liber (who is free, or who frees, also the semen)
• Liberator
• Libertas
• Lucetius (shining, for his lightningbolts)
• Maius (majestic, great) at Tusculum
• Maleciabrudes
• Monitor O. M. (leader, warner)
• Nundinarius (patron of the nundinae)
• Obsequens (agreeable, complacent)
• Opitulator or Opitulus (reliever)
• Optimus Maximus (O. M.)
• Paganicus
• Pantheus
• Patronus
• Pecunia
• Pistor (baker)
• Pluvialis (of the rains)
• Poeninus
• Praedator
• Praestes (present, protector) at Tibur
• Praestabilis
• Praestitus
• Propagator O. M.
• Propugnator
• Puer (child)
• Purgator (purifier)
• Purpurio O. M.
• Quirinus (fusion with Quirinus)
• Rector (who rules)
• Redux
• Restitutor
• Ruminus (who breastfeeds)
• Salutaris O. M.
• Savazios (fusion with Sabatius)
• Sempiternus
• Serapis (fusion with Serapis)
• Serenator (who clears the sky)
• Serenus ("clear, serene, calm; happy")
• Servator O. M. ("saviour, preserver, observer")
• Sospes ("saviour")
• Stator
• Striganus
• Succellus (fusion with Celtic god Succellus)
• Summanus
• Tempestas
• Terminus
• Territor (who scares)
• Tifatinus (of Mount Tifata near Capua)
• Tigillus (beam of the universe)
• Tonans (thundering)
• Tonitrator (who generates thunder)
• Tutator (warden)
• Valens (strong, sound, effective)
• Versor (who overthrows or who pours rain)
• Vesuvius (worshipped at Capua)
• Viminus (of the Viminal Hill place in which the god had a temple)
• Vindex (protector, defensor)
• Vircilinus

• I moved this list to Epithets of Jupiter after it was excised and posted here; just wanted to make the sequence of events clear. Incidentally, I wish someone would give us a little bio on Thulin, as I've wanted to link to one before too. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Creating epithets article

Should the article be called Epithets of Jupiter (at present a redirect to the section here) or List of epithets of Jupiter? I'm leaning toward the former, so that some of the more detailed discussion could also be moved there. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved a great deal of material to Epithets of Jupiter. There is still an enormous amount of copyediting and wikifying to do here, as well as problems with citations. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the core of this article: without this section the article loses half of its relevance. BTW other WK articles on Roman gods all have such a section!Aldrasto11 (talk)

I invite the editor(s) who deleted or moved any content of this article to reinstate it at once formally. In case of failure to do so I shall be forced to recur to DR.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There is still a section on epithets. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Temple of Capitoline Jupiter

Since there is a main article on the temple as such, the section here should focus very specifically on what the temple says about Jupiter as a deity, and his cult practice. The architecture of the temple, for instance, seems more appropriate to the main article. The history of the temple, its building and renovation, should also be related directly to the god: that is, why the men who undertook this directed their efforts at Jupiter at this particular time. The article should probably be looked at section by section to find these kinds of duplications, in the process of letting in sunlight by clearing away some of the excessive detail. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not edit this section.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting and OR

As I look through the article for copyediting, I begin to see the reason for the edit summary that claimed "99% of the article is OR." This impression is given by sections such as Flamen and flaminica Dialis and Myths, which either have no footnotes at all, or cite only primary sources. When secondary sources are given, I'm troubled by the weight given the theories of Dumézil and Wissowa, whose names appear in the body copy far too often. An encyclopedia article is not the first chapter of a dissertation; the goal is not to rehearse the history of scholarship in the manner of an annotated bibliography, but to present the material as transparently as possible, using footnotes to attribute the source. Of course, on controversial points, or in the case of notable theories (such as Dumézil's), the scholarship itself is pertinent. But if there's too much "he said, she said," the article tends to become bogged down in proper names in a way that's an obstacle to our general readers, the vast majority of whom are not scholars. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Selfcontradictory statements: on the one hand it is claimed only two names show up among secondary sources. A bit lower that this is not a dissertation and too many citation of secondary sources bog down the article. As for the OR issue: it is all from the same duo, who btw are the undoubtedly most authoritative scholars on Roman religion.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"Relation to other gods"

I've attempted to streamline this section, since in some cases there was more material on the individual deity here than in his own article. As elsewhere in this article, the focus should remain on illuminating Jupiter, not engaging in a complete essay on the relationship between the two. I worked my way up to Liber, at which point I found myself unable to continue. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And the following material goes somewhere, but not where I originally found it, and I don't know where at the moment. Throughout the article, a stronger structure is needed, and repetitions need to be unified. I think the editor primarily responsible for adding most of this material needs to slow down and edit more carefully. Not every note that one makes from one's reading needs to be placed undigested into the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

On the Capitol every Roman adoloscent must come and offer a sacrifice to Jupiter as soon as he first wears the ''toga virilis''.<ref>Wissowa above p. 135 citing Servius Danielis ''Eclogae'' IV 49-50.</ref> and the consuls open their year of office: after taking the auspices the previous night the new heads of the state come to the Capitol wearing the insignia of power accompanied by the senate, the magistrates and the people: they offer the sacrifice vowed by their predecessors and make their own vows. The senate with the consuls enter the temple and holds its first session, devoted to discussing religious matters.<ref>Livy IX 8, 1; XXII 1, 6.</ref> On the Capitol the consul organises the draft<ref>Livy XXVI 31, 11; Polybius VI 19, 6.</ref> and convokes the magistrates of the Latins and other allies to inform them of the number of soldiers they must provide,<ref>Livy XXIV 56, 5-6.</ref> the senate deliberates on war, truces and peace,<ref>Appian ''Bellum Civile'' VII 5; Livy XXXIII 25, 7.</ref> the consul makes the vows for the military success in a majestic ceremony.<ref>Livy XLII 40, 1.</ref> On the Capitol a statue is erected to the citizen or commander that has distinguished himself by order of the senate. The Capitol was the stage of the final ceremony of a triumph.The religious meaning of this ceremony was of great importance for the Romans: Jupiter was thus really ''praesens '' among his people, assuring their hopes and adding to their feeling of safety. In fact Jupiter was the only lord of his temple: the vow and dedication had been made only to him, the two goddesses were thence just his guests and no ceremony was devised to honour or even just remind the triad as such.<ref>Dumézil ARR above p. 258-261.</ref>

Recent edits

I do not see recent edits by user Cynwolfe as justified. If there is something unclear in some places of the article I am willing to cooperate and clarify, but deleting, removing or altering the content of whole sections without having even understood their meaning is certainly unacceptable and presuming (not to say rude to other editors and readers).

I never assumed what I wrote to be complete, it is just a partial contribution to the best of my knowledge at the moment of writing. I do not think doing away with sections helps enhancing the informativeness or quality of the article. E. g.: claiming that the relationship between Jupiter and Venus is just tangential means one has very little competence in the topic of Roman religion. This editor though arrogates time and again the position of supreme tribunal on articles on such a topic. How disgraceful for this site!

It cannot be claimed as an excuse the fact the actual article on other gods is shorter than the presentation on their relationship to Jupiter here: one thing is this article and another the article on any god, here the central figure is Jupiter (who is at the same time the other god in question, perhaps). Mutual relationships need to be illuminated. Moreover, and apart from that, I did not edit most of the articles on the gods discussed.

Once again I invite this editor to add relevant content from other sources, as she claims it should be, or to discuss it here on the talk page. Any further unilateral action will lead to unnecessary conflict.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I invite the editor(s) who deleted or moved any content of this article to reinstate it at once formally. In case of failure to do so I shall be forced to recur to DR.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm in no position to get involved in a big dispute here, but can I point out for starters that deletion of content and moving of content are two entirely different things, with different principles, rules, etc.? When subtopics are moved off to their own page, and clearly linked from the original page, it is very difficult to state a legitimate grievance: this is the only and proper way to keep the encyclopedia functional, and it is a testimony to the importance of the topic (not an attempt to reduce its footprint in any way) if its subtopics are themselves important enough to be so treated. Ultimately, even if we had much more on Jupiter, the proper thing to see at this main page would be brief overviews of every important topic, with pointers to fuller treatment in sub-articles.

Look at food, for example, an article half the size of this one. Is that because Wikipedia editors have ignorantly deleted and moved important aspects of the subject? Of course not. This article is twice as large simply because it has not received the care and attention that the topic food has (which means reducing the main article and parceling out the material where it is, er, digestible). If there is notable information discussed in reliable sources, I am sure a place for it can be found, but some thought may be needed about precisely where to put it.

It seems that in some cases (see immediately above), the process is bogged down because material that needn't stay here has been identified, but a home for it has not yet been found. Cynwolfe seems to be stating these cases scrupulously and modestly. In these cases, we just need conscientious editors (you can do it, or leave it to others) who will try to redispose the material appropriately. I find it very hard to imagine that DR would have any result but applauding such invitations to streamline and tidy the content and its organization, and to find fault only with those of us (guilty here) who haven't leapt in to make sure it has gone all the way to a satisfactory completion. Wareh (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I can see your good will here. Size may certainly be an issue, but please consider that an article on a Roman god is not an article on Food. I may be wrong, but the core of the article on a god concerns his theology and the section on the discussion of the epithets, taken from Wissowa's manual, surely belongs here. You will agree a reader must be able to find in the main article all the essential information that will allow him to understand the fundamental features of the topic. On other points I may agree with you, with some qualifications though. Later I shall be back. Thanks again for your effort.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Main article: Epithets of Jupiter

I would modify your formula: a reader must be able to find in the article or clearly linked as above all the departments of the topic. Otherwise, we'd have to incorporate the long list at Corpus Aristotelicum into Aristotle, together with giving much more information on Aristotle's logic, physics, ethics, etc. I also want to assume good faith. The {{Main}} template exists for a reason and should be used for its intended function. Have a look at WP:LENGTH, and consider that the rough guideline given there is precisely for an article on the scale of food & not the one twice that size you're defending. Wareh (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No on this I must clarify my point once more . The discussion of the main epithets is essential to the understanding of the theology of the god, which is certainly something must be addressed in the main article. If overall length is a problem other content may be moved. Here e. g. relationship with other gods, Jupiter outside Rome, list of epithets from RE etc.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Iuventas

The link in this case is out of question: Roman I. was not known as Hebe when her cult was instituted.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We've no article on Iuventas (goddess). Until that article's written, "Iuventas" automatically redirects to Hebe. I'd suggest a stopgap redirect to Iuventus (god) or even Iuventus (mythology), god forbid, but the redlinks speak for themselves. Haploidavey (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

And here again is my point about the sections on individual deities. One often finds in writing an article that a related topic that should be linked to is underdeveloped or nonexistent. The solution is to provide the needed article, not to go off-topic within the article you were originally working on. The section in this article on Dius Fidius had been longer than the main article on the god, which was a mere stub. Because Jupiter has a vast amount of potential material, it would be far better to discuss the connection between the two figures in the article of the more obscure one, which otherwise lacks for content. It's unlikely that a reader coming to Jupiter (mythology) will have even heard of Dius Fidius; it's enough to point to this obscure figure's existence and connection to Jupiter, and to point readers who are interested to the fuller discussion, because there's so much other ground to cover here. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Iuventas is an entity strictly related to Jupiter, so it is natural to present her here as main treat. About Dius Fidius (main article not edited by myself): you seem to forget that this is just another name for Sancus, article that I did edit. If you read Sancus you will understand that Michael Lipka's view that they are two distinct gods is proven wrong both by primary and secondary sources.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Balance and missing elements

Just to explain what I think needs to be done here (and what I was trying to do):

One problem is that despite the density and vastness of the article, it still has major gaps that a reader looking up Jupiter might expect or need to have addressed. There is virtually no explanation of the process by which the myths of Zeus were reinterpreted for Jupiter; it's as if Ovid wrote the Fasti, but the Metamorphoses (the far more famous and influential work in the classical tradition) doesn't even exist as far as this article is concerned. St. Augustine appears more than 20 times, Augustus only three. Although the period from the 2nd century BC to the 2nd century AD is what the average person most likely thinks of when she hears "ancient Rome", the approach seems to be (per Dumézil) to reveal the "true" Jupiter who existed before the Second Punic War. Very little is explained of the religious changes that resulted from the new Roman hegemony, or of religion and iconography and myth in the Augustan world, or of Imperial cult, which is mentioned in one sentence only. See, for instance, J. Rufus Fears, "The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology," Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.17.1 (1981).

The pure theology of Jupiter may be fascinating and substantial, but at the same time, the figure of Jupiter has been a topic of "mythology" since at least the time of Plautus's Amphitryon. The first goal of any article is to answer the questions that readers are likely to bring to it, as well as making them aware of aspects of the topic that are utterly new to them. So I agree with both Haploidavey on the need for a structural overhaul, and with Wareh on the density of detail, which can be counterproductive in an overview. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The theology of Jupiter never changed: it was just adapted and exploited by Augustus for his political aims. BTW through the relationship with Venus which you deleted altogether. Again, one thing is what is Roman religion, another the interpretatio graeca that started after 180 BC. This topic may well be interesting to explore per se: Dumezil too does cite the famous instance of the Amphitruo in connection to Scipio Africanus. However this task will take other space and is it not already long? The bit you removed and do not know where it belongs does develop the political scope of Jupiter's figure, does it not?Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, neglected to respond to this. It does indeed. I tried looking at it once but will have to give it another go if no one else does. It seems to be a matter of integrating it sentence by sentence into that section. This was one of the passages that repeated some info elsewhere, as Haploidavey pointed out. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations

A specific copyediting task I want to call attention to is the formatting of citations. You can't use citations like "Wissowa above" or "see note 22," because the order of information may change. Footnote numbers will certainly change as information is deleted or added. If there is a section listing bibliography, each footnote need only provide enough information for verification: Wissowa plus a date, if there's more than one work by Wissowa used (and Wissowa is always potentially ambiguous with RE). Page numbers must always be given, though. An exception would be if you're summarizing a whole chapter, or the thesis of a book. The impression of OR that the IP noted is due largely to the presence of many interpretational paragraphs without footnotes, or attributed only as thus spake Dumézil. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Likewise the enigmatic parenthetical "hereafter understood" that follows the name of some ancient sources. I'm not sure what this is intended to mean, but if it's supposed to obviate the need for providing a complete citation in subsequent refs, it doesn't (though citation templates do provide ways to do that). Cynwolfe (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Venus

Aldrasto is quite right that I deleted the Venus section precipitously. In my defense, it exhibits a problem that I'm finding throughout, what we used to call "burying the lede" in journalism. That is, in many sections the reader is left to wonder "why am I reading this? what's this to do with Jupiter?" Toward the end of a given section, I did sometimes see a glimmer of a belated topic sentence, as here, which I overlooked in my fatigue yesterday. Since Aldrasto is upset about recent edits, this might be a good test passage for collaborative editing. Like, what kind of first sentence can we write that orients the reader to the section topic? Also, the highly interpretive last paragraph (starting Venus is the cause and origin of life) lacks any citation or even a bare attribution. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The legend of Aeneas made of Venus the ancestress of the Romans. During the [[first Punic War]] the Romans had acknowledged as their brothers the people of [[Segesta]] as they too considered themselves descendents of Aeneas. The Romans had victoriously defended the goddess on [[Mount Eryx]]. The Aphrodite of Eryx had thereaftere become the main influence on the formation of the concept of Roman Venus. This Aphrodite was a composite deity, in whom Greek aspects were mixed with Semitic elements: her dominant features were pleasure and fecundity.<ref>G. Dumézil ARR above p. 408.</ref> The Romans though were mainly affected by the memory of the long resistance on the mount and to them Venus became a bestower of victory. Roman coins portray her wearing a crown and laurels and sometimes she is associated with victory. For this reason in 217 BC [[Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus]] (also known as ''Cunctator'') vowed a temple that he deicated two years later on April 23, the day of the ''Vinalia priora''. His grandfather [[Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges (consul 292 BC)|Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges]] had dedicated the temple of Venus Obsequens on August 19 the day of the Vinalia rustica. R. Schilling has detected in this link the repeated intention of associating Venus with Jupiter, the master of the Vinalia. The choice of the location of her temple shows that the Erycina was not considered a foreigner: it was within the ''pomerium'' and moreover on the Capitol Hill, near the seat of Iuppiter O. M. The rite devised for the festival of April 23 was an effusion of new wine, that was spilt in great quantities in the ditch next the goddess' temple: iIt linkrd her cult with the traditional feast and the legend of the victory bestowed by Jupiter to Aeneas in appreciation of his vow ofall the new wine of the whole Latium to the god.<ref>G. Dumézil ARR above p. 408-409.</ref> The association of Venus and Jupiter was also perhaps grounded on theological grounds as is implied by Varro' s detailed presenattion in his "''De Lingua Latina''":<ref>Varro ''De Lingua Latina'' V 61 ff.</ref> Venus is the cause and origin of life, life being due to the conjunction of fire semen and water humour, Venus being the force which holds them together. The poets say the firy semen fell from heaven into the sea and thence Venus was born from the foams out of the conjunction of fire and humour, the force of their union being named Venus. Life (''vita'') would mean born from this force (''vis''). The true meaning of the phrase ''Venus victrix'' should thence be understood as a noun from verb ''vincire'' to bound, not from ''vincere'' to win. Venus and Victoria would express the same notion as denoting bondage. Both are named ''caeligenae'' born by Heaven: the Earth is first bound by Heaven and then Victoria, thence Venus wears a crown and Victoria bears the palm, both symbols of bondage.

Previous and current version

The previous version which I edited was well researched and got high ratings: B and 4-5s in the box. It was though too long: I agree to moving some of the lest relevant sections for the understanding of the theology and functions of the god to new subsidiary articles (e. g.: lists of epithets, relationship to other gods, Jupiter outside Rome). User Cynwolfe though created a totally new, different artcle while misunderstanding and omitting many essential points of the original and pushing a biased interpretation of the god's theology. I consider the overall quality and the POV of the new article absolutly unacceptable.05:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you state what you think the "bias" and POV are? Mainly I've rearranged the overall structure (so that readers have a more concrete grasp of the basics before attempting the "Theology" section); moved material to other articles as discussed above (see especially the comment of John Carter); located sources for statements tagged as needing citations; moved citation-type attributions to footnotes; reduced wordiness; and deleted interpretational paragraphs that were unattributed and had no footnotes even to primary sources. Many sections either lacked a topic sentence (some still do, as under "Myths and legends"), or the topic sentence that articulated the relevance of the material to Jupiter was buried toward the end of the section; some of these I tried to reorganize, and make connections explicit. I think if you looked at the article carefully, you'd see that the ideas are still there. The article now seems more in keeping, for instance, with the entry on Jupiter in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome (OUP, 2010), pp. 161ff. The tone of the article should be encyclopedic, as in the Oxford entry; it should not sound like discourse among and aimed at only specialist scholars. Wikipedia is for general readers, and many of those who come to an article on a major figure of mythology will have little or no prior knowledge of Roman religion or myth. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My article though long had in the part I edited a clearcut structure, the same now I use editing articles on Roman gods: 1)Name and etymology, 2)Theology and epithets, 3)History of the cult, sacrifices, temples and political scope of the deity, 4)Myths if any, 5) Legends, 6) Rites or rituals, 7)Relationship to other gods, 8)Presence outside Rome. This structure is quite exhaustive and can accomodate all relevant info. It is obvious that the first three sections are the core of any such article in the given order of importance (though all the points are essential). After the streamlining now this structure has gone and the article has lost its coherence and logical consequentiality. The core section on theology and epithets has been dismembered and moved to a new article or relegated at the end! Links have been put at the beginning to an article edited by these two people, which tends to put the whole topic of Jupiter in the wrong setting from the outset. I do agree the article is long and the content of the last three or four sections could be moved to subsidiary articles. I am tired of meeting the unwelcome vigilance of an editor whose competence on the topic is limited and who arrogates the right of undoing a work that took months of research. It will also be very time consuming and boring arguing with this/these person(s) on the whys and therefores/pros and cons of every single particle of this article. I must be objective and acknowledge in this particular case user Haplodavey has been much more ponderate and has limited his edits to improving the form or style.

Now the present version has unravelled the original structure and approach and is pushing a particular POV on Roman religion that is not balanced: simply the cart cannot be placed before the horse. Moreover my piece on the theology of the god has been displaced at the bottom of the article with the ridicolous heading Early theology of J.This implies a god changed his theology over time and of course is nonsense. The theology of any major (di certi and selecti) Roman god was established in the books of the pontiffs and did not change to the last day of public cult (390 AD). An instance of the effects of the streamling is shown by the subsection Flamen Dialis that now has become just a boring repetition of the general article while in the original it was aimed at highlighting the theology of the god, its section of belonging. But it would be too long to enumerate and discuss each case in which the new version betrays and undoes the original.

I welcome constructive changes, i. e. additions, clarifications, correction of possible errors. In a word anything which improves the value of an article. I cannot accept ad hoc changes, cuts, streamlinings which alter the basic meaning of an edit or article, deplete its core significance, introduce a different perspective that belongs to a different POV. Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please state what POV or bias has been added to the article, pointing to specific sentences or passages? I'm sorry you feel that it's "time-consuming and boring" to discuss the article section-by-section, but that is really the only way to proceed, particularly in those cases where your prose is unclear. Please compare the clarity, tone, and readability of the Jupiter article in the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome linked above. When you say I've added "POV and bias" to the article, I would counter that in the few sentences I've added, I've balanced the approach based on Dumézil and Wissowa (whose work though classic is still a hundred years old, and shaped by the mindset of his time) with a broader range of more recent scholarship. On Dumézil, see Mary Beard et al. starting here and concluding:

Dumézil's theorizing shows us once more how powerful in accounts of early Roman religion is the mystique of origins and schemata. But in the end we are confronted with an imaginary Roman tradition of the history of their early religion; with individual pieces of information preserved in later writing either randomly or (in the case of priestly record keeping) by a process of selection we can hardly guess at; with glimpses of different kinds of information and different kinds of religious experience; and with a variety of theories that attempt to explain the information we have. This is both too little and too much. Probably most important for our understanding of Roman religion is the mythic tradition, with its tales of Romulus and Numa, the origins of customs and rituals, that was one of the most powerful ways of thinking that the Romans devised.

The scholarship has moved on from pronouncements about "origins" and perceived systems of meaning to a more sober accounting of what we do know. The authors of the two-volume Religions of Rome: A History (Cambridge University Press, 1998) go on to note that We have not followed the method, so often tried before, of seeking the 'real' religion of Rome by stripping away the allegedly later accretions, but rather have used precisely the opposite method. That is, in understanding the figure of Jupiter, the "accretions" from the Second Punic War through the rise of Christianity are surely as important as a largely hypothetical protohistorical theology, unless you're arguing for Jupiter as a real and true god whose revelations you're trying to provide (in that case, we have a different problem). Moreover, "Jupiter" as an encyclopedia topic includes secularized depictions of Jupiter, as in Ovid's Metamorphoses, which influence the classical tradition of Western art and literature. Even in regard to theology, to say that the theology of ancient Roman religion, or Jupiter in particular, didn't change in the course of the Augustan "reforms" and through its propagation in Imperial cult and provincial syncretism makes about as much sense as saying that you can safely discard Thomas Aquinas or the Reformation in understanding the nature of Jesus Christ within Christian theology. We are not seeking to present a doctrine of timeless truth that will be meaningful to reconstructivists, but to provide encyclopedic information that will be of use to all readers who come to the article with various questions, including, for instance, what an allusion in Shakespeare might mean. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall leave it to third party editors to comment on the article and to the problems posed. Cynwolfe' s post proves though just what I had stated above, i. e. that these two editors have their own POV and are determined to force it upon every article on Roman religion. This is clearly unacceptable as WP policy is to maintain neutrality. Everywhere in the world Wissowa is considered undoubtedly as the unparalleled scholar on Roman religion and reading him I found he was really a great and genial scholar. My teachers taught me never to talk of authors you do not like: thus I shall refrain from commenting on Mary Beard's assertions. I will leave it to the good sense of readers to judge them by themselves: a string of groundless and biased assumptions. Again: is it reasonable to put the cart before the horse? Who says we have no knowledge of the theology of Jupiter: Varro, Aelius Stilo, Verrius Flaccus, Valerius Soranus and Augustine were they writing on their sheer imagination? Is there no epigraphic evidence? What about Iguvium? Are we not informed of the existence of the books of the pontiffs and augurs of which fragments are extant? Is not the ritual of the Arval Brethren referring to the most archaic Roman theology even though the fragments date from the time of Caligula on and that containing the carmen was written down in 218 AD? To counter Cynwole's arguing I would say first things first, moreover it is obvious that the Augustan restoration was at least in form faithful to the original tradition: Augustus charged the best scholars of its time Marcus Antistius Labeo and Ateius Capito of studying it.

Again I shall refrain from further commenting here and leave it to third party editors to express their views. The monopolising and censorship of articles, flavoured with ignorance and arrogant presumption, exerced on topic of Roman religion by the duo Cynwolfe Haploidavey is certainly not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia and has to stop at once here.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry you're so angry about this. I've tried for quite some time now to help you incorporate your contributions in keeping with WP policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not about dictating "truth." It's about the neutral presentation of all scholarly points of view that meet standards of RS, with balance and avoiding undue weight. (And did I not say that Wissowa's work on Roman religion is a classic of scholarship?) But you're upset because I'm trying to introduce Beard & North, Wagenvoort, Palmer, Lipka, Versnel, Turcan, Rüpke and other scholars from the mid-20th century to the present into an article that you want structured only to reflect your view that there is a single, revealed Roman religion that remained unchanged from the time of Romulus and Numa (whom you regard as historical) until Christian hegemony. And if you would expand your reading, you would see that there is a great deal of scholarship pointing out that often when Augustus claimed to be "restoring" something, there's no earlier evidence that it had ever existed, or perhaps there's no evidence earlier than the time of Sulla. The Sulpicii claimed to have descended from Jupiter: do you think this was literally true, or that the claim had a social function? One of the things that T.P. Wiseman does is to examine the origin of a tradition in its social context: when does this story, or this version of the story, first appear? When was this ritual first celebrated? Why? Why did the Second Punic War result in so much religious and political innovation? The books of the Pontiffs and augurs exist only in fragments; that was Beard's point. If you had looked at the two-volume Religions of Rome, you would see that one volume is precisely a collection of fragments, inscriptions, and theological passages. But there's a difference between an encyclopedic presentation of the evidence, and dictating that "this is the one and only true way to understand this." Again, I invite you to point out errors I introduced, or biased statements, so we can fix the problem. (And please stop insulting other editors' intelligence. This is uncivil.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Was Varro making things up? Presumably not. Do we know everything Varro did? No. However, did Varro get things wrong? Certainly. Not only was he human, he had no concept of Indo-European philology; he didn't know any archaeologists. Occasionally we can even demonstrate that he did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Varro was not so silly to take recent things for ancient; moreover he was a Sabine from Reate and thus knew well the Italic religions. All the others too were fools? And the epigraphic material? And Iguvium? And Praeneste, Sannium etc.? I would not pursue this argument further. What I had to say is clearly stated and it is also apparent that Cynwolfe wants to exerce censorship on an article which, though long, was well researched and referenced. This is apparent from the fact that she put at the top of the article a piece that aims at setting the theology of the god on the background of imperial times, which is obviously absurd. A section on the ideological exploitation of Jupiter's theology by Roman emperors could be added to what I contributed but certainly not at the beginning. Jupiter existed throughout Italy since prehistoric or protohistoric times and one cannot possibly argue that it was a creation of imperial Rome, unless he wishes to be funny. The article is on Jupiter the god, not on what use Roman men made of its original theology at the end of a period of 720 years. Apart from Beard none of the authors you cite dares to state this nonsense. True, our sources are relatively late, belonging for the most part to the middle of the I century BC (though Aelius Stilo, Valerius Soranus, Varro, Granius Flaccus and Cicero precede the augustan restoration by two generations). However they reflect a much earlier tradition: no one can seriously cast doubts on the fact that the colleges of the augurs, pontiffs, salii, arval brethren, sodales titii etc. had their written as well as oral records and traditions, rules, which were not subject to relevant changes since the regal period. See e. g. Cicero's De Legibus II 21:

''Interpretes Iovis optumi maxumi publices augures, signis et auspicis postera vidento, disciplinam tenento sacerdotesque vineta virgetaque et salutem populi auguranto; quique agent rem duelli quique popularem auspicium praemonento ollique obtemperanto. Divorumque iras providento sisque apparento, caelique fulgura regionibus ratis temperanto, urbemque et agros et templa liberata et effata habento.".

Also Festus s. v. arcanum, penetrale sacrificium and of course the carmen saliare and arvale: does all this stuff look from the I century BC.? Funny nuts. Further discussion of this topic is idle talk, the fact remains that a well researched, well structured, well referenced article is being unravelled by the censorial hand of a topic unfriendly editor: articles written by the duo hardly deal seriously with religious issues at any depth but much more with politics and sociology and give a biased presentation of Roman religion.

All said I hope there will be some thorough evaluation feedback from third party editors.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

All said, I also hope for that; and that you desist from offering any further personal smears. This talk-page is intended to facilitate article development; please refer to the talk-page notice, above. If you've points or arguments to offer on the article structure or content, please support them by referring explicitly to specific, reliable scholarly sources and scholarly opinion, not your personal opinions about trends in modern scholarship. And certainly not your personal opinions on individual editors. Or duos. Whoever they might be. Haploidavey (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish to offer my apologies to user Haploidavey who has done quite a good job in some articles, though I may disagree on questions of emphasis, and did a clean job in editing this effort of mine as well. I wish that my main reason for complaint be correctly understood by readers and editors. Some slanted presentations may do great harm to any topic. However it is obvious that his request here is out of place: it is my work, well researched, referenced and structured and certainly not biased that gets attacked, so it is not up to me to give any further comment. As far as the querelle on scholarship is concerned if you read carefully this discussion you shall see it is not me who has introduced the issue, I have been just answering a clumsy bunch of remarks made by user Cynwolfe.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I"m going to warn you once more that you are behaving uncivilly. You need to focus on specific content issues. Some points in response:

• I don't see how any precedence has been given to Imperial times. On the contrary, the cult of Jupiter in the Empire is virtually missing. The continuity of cult in the Empire is mentioned once in the intro, as it should be (and I'm not the one who put it there), and the section on "Jupiter and the state" ends with the right of plebeians to hold office, even as the Dialis remained a patrician preserve: this was the early Republic. In fact, there should be a concluding paragraph in that section about what Augustus did in regard to the cult, including transferring some of the rituals associated with Jupiter to Mars Ultor. And that paragraph should also mention the use made of Jupiter in Imperial cult in the provinces into late antiquity.
• What's missing after the intro and before the section on the state (and what I would provide were I not weary of getting personally abused) is a succinct section on functions and attributes, to orient the beginner.
• I moved the Theology section to the end because most readers will come here not knowing anything about Roman religion, nor have any concept of state priesthoods and public rituals: many won't even know the difference between the Republic and Empire (I just corrected an article on a town in Roman Spain written by a student who said the Second Punic War was fought by the Roman Empire; he even linked to the article Roman Empire and was evidently untroubled by the gap in chronology). I'm just trying to make sure that a college sophomore who's coming here to work on an assignment has a grasp of concrete matters such as priests, sacrifices, festivals, temples, iconography, and the difference between religion and literary myth (still utterly absent). The reconstructed theology is based on these forms of evidence. The section on theology is highly conceptual and difficult; if the article leads with that, the vast majority of readers will be lost.

The point is, Aldrasto needs to state clearly and specifically what information about Jupiter has been lost in the revision, so we can restore it. I would also like to know whether he sees the difference in encyclopedic tone between the example I linked to above in an Oxford encyclopedia, and the kind of scholarly discourse that is not accessible to the kind of general reader looking up Jupiter as a mythological figure. That's what I've been attempting to disentangle. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Example

Here's an example of the kind of editing I've been doing, other than rearranging and moving content to other articles.

The section Jupiter (mythology)#Birth, formerly under "Myths", originally read:

Jupiter had no myths in Rome in early times. After the Hellenistic influence on Roman culture became pervasive he was identified with Greek Zeus and inherited his myths. Praeneste records his myth of infancy since the earliest times: he was represented as suckled by goddess Fortuna together with Juno. At the same time he was the father of Fortuna. Jacqueline Champeaux sees this contradiction as the result of successive different cultural and religious phases in which a wave of influence coming from the Hellenic world made of Fortuna the daughter of Jupiter.

There was not a single footnote in the section. I have no idea how Praeneste, a town, recorded something, but I looked up sources, clarified these statements, and provided citations. Under the heading "Birth" under "Myths and legends," it now reads:

Jupiter was depicted as the twin of Juno in a statue at [[Praeneste]] that showed them nursed by [[Fortuna Primigenia]].<ref>Described by [[Cicero]], ''[[De divinatione]]'' 2.85, as cited by R. Joy Littlewood, "Fortune," in ''The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome'' (Oxford University Press, 2010), vol. 1, p. 212.</ref> An inscription, however, also from Praeneste, says that Fortuna Primigenia was Jupiter's first-born child.<ref>''[[Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum|CIL]]'' 1.60, as cited by Littlewood, "Fortune," p. 212.</ref> Jacqueline Champeaux sees this contradiction as the result of successive different cultural and religious phases in which a wave of influence coming from the Hellenic world made of Fortuna the daughter of Jupiter.{{cn|date=November 2011}} The childhood of Zeus is an important theme in Greek religion, art and literature, but there are only rare or dubious depictions of Jupiter as a child.<ref>[[William Warde Fowler]], ''The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic'' (London, 1908), pp. 223–225.</ref>

I did not delete Aldrasto's information, which I would've been justified in doing as a violation of WP:V. It was obviously contradictory to say Jupiter had no myths in Rome in early times, to say that any myths of Jupiter were really those of Zeus, and then to say that since earliest times Jupiter had a myth of infancy in Praeneste. We have a perfectly reasonable and useful interpretation of this from Jacqueline Champeaux, who unfortunately is mentioned nowhere else on the page; no further citation is offered. We need one. I moved the statement Jupiter had no myths in Rome in early times as part of the introduction to the section "Myths and legends". I tagged it as unsourced. In fact this is the view of a particular strand of scholarship, which in the revision I have more than generously called "dominant" in an effort to placate Aldrasto even though I have no evidence that it has been dominant in the last 50 years. It may depend on your definition of "myth" and "early times." When I went looking for sources so the "citation needed" tag could be removed, I found a succinct but nuanced summary by Hendrik Wagenvoort, which I provided in paraphrase:

A dominant line of scholarship has held that Rome lacked a body of myths in its earliest period, or that this original mythology has been irrecoverably obscured by the influence of the [[Greek mythology|Greek narrative tradition]].<ref>[[Hendrik Wagenvoort]], "Characteristic Traits of Ancient Roman Religion," in ''Pietas: Selected Studies in Roman Religion'' (Brill, 1980), p. 241, ascribing the view that there was no early Roman mythology to [[Walter Friedrich Otto|W.F. Otto]] and his school.</ref> After the [[Hellenization]] of Roman culture, Latin literature and iconography reinterpreted the myths of Zeus in depictions and narratives of Jupiter. In the legendary history of Rome, Jupiter is often connected to kings and kingship.

T.P. Wiseman, whose work I hope to incorporate, thinks it's incorrect to say that Rome had no myths before Hellenization; see also the mention in the quotation above from the authors of Religions of Rome , a standard and widely used source often referenced by Anglophone scholars. I would really like the personal attacks on me to stop, and I would instead like to focus on what I did wrong and how I can fix it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment (by an uninvolved editor): I've looked at the article and, while it's on its way, I think it's a stretch to assess it as B-class in its current form (I can help with copyediting, if still needed, after the December wikification drive). There may be an ownership issue at work here; it's good to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Having created a couple of articles myself, I realize it's human nature to take it a bit personally when our hard work is edited. However, it's very important to the ultimate success of the encyclopedia (which is what we're all after) to never lose sight of the big picture. Miniapolis (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There have been two posts by uninvolved editors til now. While I wish to thank them for their comments I must say they failed to understand the aim of my RFC. Simply: they should read the two versions (mine is archived), compare them and make an objective comparative appraisal of each. I do not think that we can take the current version as the basis of any further work just because it is the latest. The last editor has unravelled the original structure: I read it , it is a different, new article. It would be unreasonable to ask of me to go after another person's work, pointing out every place where things have been messed up, misinterpreted, undone, impoverished in scope and relevance etc. (above as an instance I gave the section on the flamen Dialis: it was a subsection of the theology section written with the aim of highlighting the fundamental theology of the god and now is a little, useless repetition of the main article, totally stripped of its relevant, qualifying points and divorced from its original context). I have good will but not so much time and energy (and nobody pays wikipedians).Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the version Aldrasto means, before the "excessive detail" tag prompted me to look at the article more closely and to solicit input from the Mythology and Classical Greece & Rome projects. The editing was undertaken in response to comments by User:Wareh [1] [2][3]; User:Haploidavey[4] and on structural problems that led to repetition[5]; and User:John Carter[6] (who suggested that the topic offers opportunities for a number of "spinoffs"). I appreciate Miniapolis's offer to help with copyediting. I'm trying to copyedit one section a day, in no particular order, but may need to take a break. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The supposed structural problems spotted by Davey (i. e. repetitions) were in fact at a closer look just expansions of a topic given in a sketchy way in the first introductory part. BTW I did not see the section on Jupiter in the political history of Rome as finished. I disagree that the section Triumph has to be connected primarily with the section on politics: in my version I placed it in the section on Rites since this is an article on religion and triumph was first of all a religious ritual.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fraught and difficult topic of the Roman Triumph (which needs attention), let's please not forget that this article's history shows many, many versions. The current version's the one we have, and has been years in the making. It represents the cumulative efforts and editorial decisions of hundreds of different editors. In a month, or in a year, it might look completely different. Rather, it almost certainly will.

So what should this article look like for the time being? I take the repetition of content - in any article - as a clear marker of structural and organisational problems. A well organised article - like a well-written sentence or paragraph (not this one) - offers information in crisp, lively syntax. It methodically reveals, develops and enlivens its subject; and in this respect I think the current form of the article is at the very least on the right road. The reader should not have to encounter the same material several times over. It's unnecessary and confusing: "Hang on a minute, haven't I read something about this already?" I hope we've enough goodwill here to solve all these problems. I mean, we're not dealing with subatomics (that said, if you're after a model for clarity on a potentially very difficult topic, you might try Atom).

I think we're foundering on the unnecessary opposition of two complementary conceptual approaches. I'm not sure how or why this should have come about; all the material seems mutually supportive. Weren't Roman politics, Roman theology and Roman religion (as a social, ritual phenomenon) co-dependent and intertwined throughout Roman history? And wasn't Jupiter the central divine authority in all this? So what's the problem? The sketchy "introduction" to Jupiter in Roman political life (and yes, he's a god, so we already know we're also in vaguely theological territory) is incomplete. Let's just forget about who wrote what, splice the two sections and see how it reads. We don't need two sections on the same topic. And we don't need to disperse the same content under several different headings in the same article. Haploidavey (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I marvel at Atom too (though sad that the Epicureans don't merit a mention in the History section, despite Greenblatt's book that temporarily made Lucretius one of the best-selling poets in America!). Note that the sections there on "Identification" and "Origin and current state" come at the end; as a matter of pure logic, one might argue that origin and identification come before the product of knowledge. But the article isn't primarily about how we know what we know, or the process of obtaining knowledge, but the product of knowledge. Therefore, the atom is first described. By comparison, the kind of reader who comes to a WP article for information on Jupiter will need first to get a grip on the role that Jupiter played concretely in the everyday life of Romans: cult practices and who administered them; how they saw Jupiter represented in public art; what stories were told. Then readers will be more prepared to deal with the conceptual difficulties of theology as such. I see the most urgent gap right now as a section following the introduction outlining "Functions and attributes" and/or "Iconography". I moved the eagle sentence to the intro, in part because the top image has an eagle, and in part because there was no other section to put it in. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm somewhat embarrassed to see that many of my criticisms above have already been addressed. Duh. On the need to introduce religion-in-action before its mooted origins, and its conceptual and theoretical frameworks, I completely agree. Haploidavey (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly didn't read your comment that way. Some reiteration is to be expected in a long discussion trying to iron out differences. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again I do not think there was any repetiton in my version of the article. The introductory part had been written before by somebody else and:

1. As a rule I respect previous editors' work scrupolously as far as possible.

2. My additions concerned the concrete episodes of Roman political history in which Jupiter had a role in some way, while the previous material made only general statements concerning the role of the god in Rome's theocratic government.

However all this is irrelevant as the current version of the article has defaced the content and meaning of what I contributed. Not that I disagree for a question of owning, it is the presentation that lacks a solid and clear foundation. A reader must be informed clearly first and above all of who was this god of whom we are talking about: what was the meaning of his name, how did the Romans conceive him, what were the roles and functions he played in religion and social life. This is reflected in his theology, epithets, position and privileges of his priests, related rituals, rites etc.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

:Not ignoring this but image of Jupiter Tonans seeks urgent dietary advice (below). Haploidavey (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Writing articles in the way you describe is an exceeding rare luxury on Wikipedia - and I'm not even sure that it benefits writers or their readers. Constructive criticism's good for articles, and for writers. I too would rather not excise swathes of text that represent days or months of anyone's hard work. But in the end, what counts is what's on the page - and on this, we seem to disagree.

We really should deal with these issues of disagreement point by point. One at a time. Just to make sure we're all referring to same version (per Aldrasto's remarks above), here's another link to the diff, and reiteration of some previous comments. As far as I can remember, that version of the Introduction (lede) is something I removed from Religion in ancient Rome some time ago. It seemed over-detailed for that article but potentially useful here; and as a summary of sorts, it seemed to belong in the lede. Some was transferred, along with its citations, to a new section on "Jupiter and the State". Meanwhile, we already had a section on "Jupiter in the political History of Rome"; but that was severely undercited, and entirely dependent on a single secondary source (Dumezil). This was the version that was tagged for excessive detail, then tagged again for further copyediting issues. Some of that material has since been distilled and incorporated into "Jupiter and the State" by Cynwolfe. I agree that this new section still needs a great deal of work. I also think Jupiter's identity should be somehow brought to the fore within that section. Haploidavey (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder too whether Aldrasto could address some of the passages that need citations, like Champeaux (whose helpful statement will have to be deleted if we can't provide a citation for it). On his last point Haploidavey and I may disagree. I think there needs to be a section before "Jupiter and the state" that outlines "Functions and attributes" and basic iconography (such as stating directly that the lightning bolt is one of the primary attributes/instruments of Jupiter; this is needed to help the general reader visualize Jupiter's role in augury, which probably needs to be defined better under "Jupiter and the state"). If this is only a paragraph or so, it could be part of the intro instead of a separate section. It substitutes for the "disinformation" box that's caused problems in other articles on classical deities. At any rate, I would like for us to generate a list of sources here that would be good to use in an overview for general readers. (Lipka is good on functions, but has a rather idiosyncratic terminology of foci; I'm not sure how to generalize it even though I find it highly useful.) And although in many articles (not just those about Roman religion in particular, but those that deal in subsections with Romano-Jewish relations or early Christianity) I have been at pains to clarify that the ancient Romans had a religion and not just a "mythology," I think we have to keep in mind that there really is such a thing as "mythology," and that American students take classes in it (it's often one of the classes in classics departments with the highest enrollment). As in the Oxford encyclopedia linked above, we will need a section on Hellenized/secularized Jupiter, found at least as early as Plautus, with a paragraph on Ovid's Jupiter in the Metamorphoses. I'd also recommend that we all review the WP essay Wikipedia:Readers first. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I suggested forking all that into the one section. Perhaps I'm simply preoccupied with reducing overloads - anyway, we should offer the meal in a sequence of courses. An outline "starter" on "Functions and attributes" (or somesuch) seems essential to all that follows. Haploidavey (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Although this comment has been removed (without apology but presumably because it's false), it indicates that perhaps some of this is a tempest in a teapot, caused by not looking closely enough at what's actually in the article. I maintain that other than agreed-upon diverting to other articles, a couple of passages that await discussion on this page, and deletions of interpretational passages without sources (which Wikipedia treats as OR), there is no loss of actual content from the earlier version, just consolidation, reorganization, and reduction of sheer verbiage. We do, however, need a better treatment of some of the major epithets here. It's just that this should be done in keeping with WP:Readers first; that is, written as a description of the epithet and its significance, with scholarship in footnotes as much as possible, and not written as a description of the scholarship per se or as a conversation among scholars. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, yours is a new article. The material may be to some extent the same but it is given in a different context thus losing its intended meaning/function. There are no interpretational passages without source in what I wrote: simply let us say that have difficulty at understanding what you read. And you had better read again the section on V: not always citations are compulsory, only when the text may be cause of conflict. I wrote an excellent section on the main epithets (based on Wissowa) that highlightesd the personality of the god which you relagated to a subsidiary article. I suggest it is reintegrated here.Aldrasto11 (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is simply untrue that there were no interpretational passages without a source! For instance, the following paragraph (see Talk:Jupiter (mythology)#Venus above) had no footnote at all, not even to a primary source, nor is it clearly attributed to a particular author or school of thought: Venus is the cause and origin of life, life being due to the conjunction of fire semen and water humour, Venus being the force which holds them together. The poets say the firy semen fell from heaven into the sea and thence Venus was born from the foams out of the conjunction of fire and humour, the force of their union being named Venus. Life (vita) would mean born from this force (vis). The true meaning of the phrase Venus victrix should thence be understood as a noun from verb vincire to bound, not from vincere to win. Venus and Victoria would express the same notion as denoting bondage. Both are named caeligenae born by Heaven: the Earth is first bound by Heaven and then Victoria, thence Venus wears a crown and Victoria bears the palm, both symbols of bondage. Now, before you start spewing about how ignorant I am, let me state for the record that I'm perfectly aware of the philosophical and theological interpretations of the birth of Venus. The point is that you do not provide a source. Nor is "in Dumézil's opinion" (some variation of which is used frequently) a proper citation. Nor is "Jacqueline Champeaux says," still tagged as needing a citation. You've been editing for two years now under some name or other; it really is time to grasp the basics and do your own copyediting and wikification, or stop complaining when others do. And I have to ask: have you read WP:Readers first? Do you get what we're trying to tell you about clarity and WP readers? This has nothing to do with the quality of your sources, or the depth of your thought. It has to do with how the material is presented. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The section on the relationship with other gods was well researched and contained much information on several gods which is not given in the respective articles (e. g. Saturn, Genius, Venus etc.): by deleting it you deprived readers of much relevant knowledge. The passage you claim is unsourced is in fact not: it is the English translation of Varro LL V 66! As for Champeaux: Fortuna I think is cited elsewhere here...however I shall repeat it.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Champeaux Fortuna. Le culte de la Fortune à Rome et dans le monde romain. I Fortuna dans la religion archaïque 1982 Rome PEFR review by John Scheid in Revue de l' histoire des religions 1986 203 1 p. 67-68 (Comptes rendus).Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between you knowing where something came from, and providing adequate citations so that other editors can verify (or interested readers look up the source). If this is the citation for the tagged observation from Champeaux, put it in the article. Go through the article and look for other tags to fix. I'm sorry if you find this boring and time-consuming, but this is the work that Wikipedia editors do. Even if you cite a source once, you need to footnote it again if you reference it again. If you do your work correctly, other editors won't need to do anything to it. As I've said repeatedly, this is not about whether your sources are of high quality (they are), or whether you have valuable things to contribute (you do). It's about getting it right on the page. You should take a look at some articles that follow correct procedures as a model: have a look, for instance, at Diocletianic Persecution. This was a Featured Article that has remained stable since it achieved that status. The intro summarizes the body copy (I think the intro's too long, but notice I don't go in and rework it, because it's done correctly); in the body copy, nearly every sentence has a footnote. The article uses a dual system of discursive notes and references, which I myself would find inconvenient to use, but it's a sign of how carefully the editors did their work. The citations are often just author's name, a shortened form of the title and/or year, and a page number. But every statement can be precisely verified. There are scholarly controversies on this subject, but the article stays focused on describing and narrating the subject matter, not describing the scholarship as such and throwing in scholars' names all over the place: there's a separate section at the end that reviews the scholarly tradition. But I can't emphasize too strongly how carefully cited it is; that's what I'd like you to look at. For all I know, there may be better or other sources that could've been used, but editors are able to see where each and every statement comes from, down to the page number. (Well, except for a single sentence that's tagged as needing a citation.) Notice also the clarity of the sentence construction, and the balanced length of sentences. Please, if I weren't trying to help you continue editing, I wouldn't be giving you suggestions for improvement or models to look at; I'd be taking actions against you. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that article's a good example of standard reader-friendly, editor-friendly Wikipedia practice. It's a shame we don't have a Roman religion GA to use as a model. Perhaps if we submitted one, some of these problems could be ironed out? Anyway, just a quick note here on the correct placing of citations. Always position them at the end of the material they're supposed to support, not midway through. If we've been offered the fact that Champeaux says this or that, where does she say it? That needs citing. If Champeaux is commenting on Varro, and we then wish to quote Varro, we need only a single citation, to show that what we've been reading is based on Champeaux (whatever plus page number), who cites Varro (work and page number, and translation source). Haploidavey (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please just stop from straying from the topic of this thread and trying to change the cards on the table. The issue here is not my citation style, it is the fact that you edited away most of my article for you thought it dealt with the subject in a way you do not agree with. Readers may wish to have to refer above. My editing may not be perfect, but WP.V does not require that every sentence be cited either, just check it again dearie. Clearly you are at a loss and making up excuses to be able to attack my work. I aim at giving readers a direct contact with the essentials of the topic, nothing else, I do not presume I am going to write a WP masterpiece, just something systematically informative, spot on most relevant issues of Roman religion (nothing less and more) and of course based on very sound scholarship. Sometimes there is only a primary source available, but I think the reader will get more insight from it than from silence...Aldrasto11 (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not about citation style (there are several acceptable styles), but about having adequate citations. Every sentence does not need to have a citation, but every idea needs to be attributed; sometimes a paragraph may come entirely from a single source, and as Davey pointed out, it's best to place that citation at the end of the paragraph. Sometimes when I've done that in articles, however, I've had editors ask for a citation in the middle of the paragraph, too, because they weren't sure whether that footnote at the end of the paragraph covered the whole thing. This is really not a content dispute; I've said repeatedly that you use good sources and that you contribute interesting points (once I spend two hours figuring out what you're trying to say). The issue is presentation: adequate citations, balance (using a wider range of sources from differing schools of thought), clarity, and accessibility. If you follow guidelines, your copy is far less likely to be edited in a way that makes you unhappy. Using primary sources to support your own interpretational schema is by WP's definition OR. Because you edit within such a narrow topic area, and have mainly interacted with Haploidavey and me, you may not understand how the WP community at large operates. We have tried to treat you with respect and patience. But I regret to say that your behavior on this talk page and your refusal to make even simple fixes, such as adding tagged citations, have reached the level of disruptive editing (see especially the second paragraph there). I can understand not being comfortable in the WP community, but you may feel freer to promulgate your views elsewhere; there are many ways to self-publish inexpensively these days, and I'm sure reconstructionists would appreciate your detailed theology. You might even find that such work could be profitable. I wish you well. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that Cynwolf's behaviour on this talk page is utterly unreasonable and unacceptable. Why should I fix a version of the article that I did not edit in the first place? Is not such a request unreasonable? I asked for comment from thrird party editors on the question of which version they think is best written and informative. Unfortunately there has been none til now. I am not interested in further bickering with this person who is certainly not an uninvolved party. I will not edit this article until and unless my original version is restored. Then and only then shall I be willing to discuss improvements, changes, the moving of matter to other articles etc. I take good note that you yourself have made clear that you and Haploidavey consider yourselves as the depositaries of authority here on the subject of Roman religion and act clearly and beyond any doubt as MEATPUPPETS. I will leave it to other readers and admistrators to judge the assertions of user Cynwolfe about my supposed ulterior aims. And I defy anyone to prove that I have done anything else than presenting the topics at issue in a neutral balanced way. This is blatantly against WP rules and personally offensive on the part of a person who had better keep quiet. Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No-one's telling you to do anything at all. You've no business telling anyone to keep quiet. Advice has been offered and suggestions have been made, all in good faith. You seem interested only in restoring "your" version, so I can't see where we can go from here, unless to an RfC. Your accusations of meatpuppetry belong at the appropriate noticeboard, not here. Haploidavey (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And on the specific point of Venus I have no interpretation to offer different from that of ... Marcus Terentius Varro! I take it as a blatant personal attack Cynwolfe's assertion that I am trying to promulgate any personal view of my own that is not that of scholars (modern and sometimes ancient, if opportune and justified). Everyone who can read English is able to see that the passage in question is clearly cited, it is a quotation of an authoritative Roman scholar (who btw was speaking to his public certainly making use of / reference to commonplace knowledge)! Aldrasto11 (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Clear case of WP:IDHT. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not intimidated by this duo's threats and innuendos. I do not see how an unjustified, maiming attack on an article previously rated B can be smuggled as well intentioned, collaborative editing. I am not interested in legal scuffles either: life is too short and I have better things to do. I am not going to waste a minute longer bickering with a person who thinks she impersonates WP, its law and its truth. Here she has got to grossly abusing me, making any sort of base personal innuendos on me, my supposed views etc. to the point of offering unsolicited advice on what I should do...?! Just read above, readers and administrators... I never dreamed of behaving in such a way with others here or elsewhere. I have answered in general, and of course (as I said earlier) I see no need/use for me to comply with their absurd requests. One should rewrite/ explain everything from scratch, but it would be an inhuman task as the person in question has difficulty even at understanding what I write (not only because of the poor quality of my English though... see above on Venus and the cited Varro's passage attributed ... to my pen!). It is certain that any reasonable person can see that the original article has been maimed, the content cut and reused in an improper way, that the last editor has misinterpreted content and introduced a different bias to the article. This is the third time and place where the two attack and destroy my articles or contributions.That is all.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Image fix is sought

Does anyone know how to fix this? The options so far seem to be upright but porky, or having a kip - I think the source image needs to be flipped, or something. Haploidavey (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Iuppiter Tonans, possibly reflecting the cult image of the temple of Jupiter Tonans (Prado)

Iuppiter Tonans, possibly reflecting the cult image of the temple of Jupiter Tonans (Prado)

I don't have a clue what happened here. (What means "porky"?) So the image was showing up on its side like this in the article when you visited the page this morning? I don't know how to see what caused it. I just checked, and it's showing up on its side at Commons too now. I don't see any changes in its history there that would account for this. Not sure who to ask. Help Desk? Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images? It's like this at Epithets of Jupiter too. I'd like to know what caused it before I go to Commons to fix it. In fact, it might be better to go to the source and ask at the Commons Help desk. If you don't have or want a Commons account, I could ask there. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Porky? Chubby, generously girthed. A sort of Jupiter Imporcitor. I can't figure out what's happened to the image, or when it happened. The file history shows no changes at all. I've a Commons account but seldom use it. I'll ask at the Help desk. Haploidavey (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice it yesterday, but I'm not sure I looked at that section. Was definitely not that way on Friday. The "upright" can be used for vertical images to keep them in proportion to your image size default without dictating a width. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Davey, this seems to be something going on at Commons. Click on the image again and follow the link to its page at Commons, where there is now an explanation. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I have resolved this on commons - Youreallycan (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

- I think the upright syntax will need removing now. Youreallycan (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, new software. And some kind soul at the help-desk has placed a request to fix our particular image. Haploidavey (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess when we see it restored here, we'll know to put it back on the page. Since it doesn't show up in the edit history and hence not on a watchlist, I wonder how many other images are affected? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few, I'd guess. I'm curious to see what the "upright" syntax does to the image, once the source is fixed. Haploidavey (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it doesn't do much of anything. Will continue this on your talk page so as not to go off-topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for fixing this, Youreallycan! Cynwolfe (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)