Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Anicia (gens) & Anicia (late Imperial family)

I added information on the late imperial Anicii to the page Anicia (gens), but it was removed and inserted in Anicia (late Imperial family). I do not agree with this removal and I ask for re-unification of the two pages. Please, give your opinions in Talk:Anicia (late Imperial family). --TakenakaN (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

there is also another page dealing with the same subject: Anicius (prosopography). This should be merged with one of the others. Constantine ✍ 19:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The page Anicius (prosopography) serves no purpose. Would someone make sure the individuals are listed with either Anicia (gens) or Anicia (late Imperial family)? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

All of the individuals are now listed under Anicia (gens) in the subsection on late Imperial Anicii. I didn't add any biographical details about Flavius Anicius Probus, because he doesn't appear in the DGRBM, and I can't identify him in my index to Pauly-Wissowa. There are no individuals with this exact name, although there are several with similar names. The only sources cited for his biography are two recent genealogical treatises by Christian Settipani, which are both written in French and do not appear to be widely available. P Aculeius (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously my fault, for acting hastily to correct what I considered to be an unnecessary revision of the page, which until January 18 was a simple article about the Anicia gens, based primarily on reputable material in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, and supplemented with The Magistrates of the Roman Republic and other sources. The page followed a standard format for other pages about Roman gentes in the project I have been working on for the last month.

Yesterday, Takenakan reformatted the page by changing the sections into subsections, and adding a full section of narrative text about the late Imperial family, formatted differently from the rest of the page and all of the other pages. While trying to decide what to do about these changes, I discovered that much of the information added (such as the relationships between persons, and other families) could not be verified through the DGRBM or other sources I had available, and that a major source for the related persons mentioned in the articles (and the only sources in several instances) were modern genealogical treatises asserting descent from antiquity through these persons. The treatises are not written in English and do not appear likely to be available to the general public.

My first impulse was to edit the entries so that they would conform to the general formatting of a page about the gens. But as I could not figure out what sources the information should be attributed to, or whether to regard it as reliable, and as I had serious doubts about whether the family even was related to the Roman gens, I decided it would make more sense to split the article into one article about the gens that existed during the Roman Republic, and another about the late imperial family. That way concerns about the accuracy of the material and its sources could be properly dealt with, and none of the narrative would need to be edited out to make it fit on the page about the gens.

I have attempted to resolve this dispute by explaining the reasons for the split, and also ensuring that material which could reasonably be said to belong on the page Anicia (gens) was included there, with links to the relevant articles, just as it would have been had the additions been formatted like all the other entries on the page. However, I do not feel that all of the material in the new page (Anicia (late Imperial family) belongs on the page Anicia (gens), nor that the formatting imposed on Anicia (gens) yesterday was appropriate to the topic. The revisions made the family in which Takenakan is interested appear to be the major focus of the article, and would have made the page substantially different from all of the related articles on other gentes. P Aculeius (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I expected this matter to be discussed in the talk page of the appropriate article, however...

The removal of the information has been performed without any prior discussion, which could have resolved some, if not all, the problems pointed to by Aculeius. Such a thing has been already happened, for example, on the matter of the Praeneste origin of the Anicia gens, which was removed on the basis it was supported by sources Aculeius did not consider "reputable" but was quickly re-inserted after other sources were provided (and I say this to pay homage to Aculeius honesty).

The two major issues, according to Aculeius, are the quality of the sources and formatting of the article.

My position is that the sources provided are as "reputable" as the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography (a 19th century work), but, even those of different opinion should agree with me that either these sources are sufficient, and therefore there is no reason to remove the content based on them from Anicia (gens), or they are not, and therefore the content based on them is inappropriate for Anicia (late Imperial family) too. If the sources are not "reputable" enough for one article, the content must me removed, not moved to another article.

As regards the formatting, I think that where necessary, uniformity in formatting among the articles of the same type should be ignored in favour of completeness of content. The fact that the typical gens article does not deal with the story of the gens as a whole does not mean that, when this information is presented, it should be removed for formatting reasons. --TakenakaN (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't completeness. And it does deal with the gens as a whole. But it doesn't go into tremendous detail about the individual members, how they're related, what saints they were devoted to, and soforth. These articles are meant to point to individual biographies. The list of members reads like this: "* Marcus Balventius T. f. M. n. Maximus, consul in 126 and 111 B.C. * Titus Balventius M f. T. n. Maximus, praetor in 87 B.C." It's not meant to be laid out like a pedigree chart, with lots of information about each person, or subheadings for people's children and grandchildren. That kind of material is more than enough to justify a separate article.

These articles certainly aren't perfect, but they were carefully designed to work in a simple, straightforward way, with a standard format intended to make them easy to use. I note that you didn't suggest ways of improving it before you reformatted the article. P Aculeius (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the family had branches related to other important families is pertinent to the family article? The fact that the family was particularly devoted to a certain saint, that built or helped building a basilica still existing, part of which was probably used as a sort of private family chapel is pertinent to the family article? The fact that a branch of the family moved to the East, where it rose in prominence is pertinent to the family article? The fact that the family followed a particular political current is pertinent to the family article? Should this information be removed because of uniformity among family articles? This is the matter. --TakenakaN (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous factual issues with this article, which I have described at Talk:Anicia (late Imperial family)#Factual Issues. The only sources listed for the article seem to be making new claims that are neither explained in the article, nor recognized by established historical sources widely available to the general public. Some of them, alleging a connection between the Anicii, Constantine the Great, Pope Liberius, and the construction of the Basilica of Saint Anastasia do not seem to be supported by the facts. Others, alleging the descent of several popes from the Anicii, also appears doubtful based on their individual articles.

If the sources for this article explain how such previously-unknown connections existed, at least some of the evidence used to refute what we think of as historical facts ought to be mentioned, or at the very least such claims should be described in the article text as new claims by recent scholars, instead of stated as facts. But once again, this kind of discussion is beyond the scope of the original article Anicia (gens), and deserves to be treated in a separate article. P Aculeius (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the fact, for example, that Pope Gregory I was probably an Anicius is beyond the scope of Anicia (gens)? Why the (eventual) use of the Basilica di Sant'Anastasia al Palatino as a family chapel is beyond the scope of Anicia (gens)? I agree that facts without reliable sources must be removed, but then you claim that these facts are also "beyond the scope of the original article Anicia (gens)" without explaining why. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article about the gens is not intended to discuss theories about what famous persons of later times might (or might not) have been related to the family, or what basilica they used as their family chapel. It's a "gateway" to more detailed articles about many individuals, where subjects like that can be discussed in as much detail as necessary. Also, the descent of Pope Gregory I from the Anicii is not a fact. It is a hypothesis, which seems to be based on the "tradition" that he was a descendant of Pope Felix III, whose own ancestry is completely unknown, according to the article about him, although your article asserts that his descent from the Anicii is based on "solid records".

Moreover, the article does not state that the Basilica di Sant'Anastasia al Palatino was eventually the family chapel of the Anicii. It states that the Anicii "probably cooperated with Pope Liberius in the erection of the Basilica di Sant'Anastasia". Yet, the article on the Basilica dates it to some 25-75 years before the accession of Pope Liberius, perhaps some decades before the accession of Constantine I, who is somehow drawn into this article because Bassianus married his sister, although nothing in the article about Bassianus suggests any connection with the Anicii...

The identification of the Anicii with this Basilica seems to have been implied from the fact that Constantine's sister is "traditionally" called Anastasia, even though the chapel is not known to be connected with her, may have been built before she was born, and is dedicated to Saint Anastasia who appears to have nothing to do with the Anicii. But even if some of the Anicii did worship there, that information is relatively trivial.

If everything of similar importance were included about all the persons in the article Anicia (gens) or other articles about other gentes, the articles would be overflowing with biographical minutiae about what wars each person fought in, what buildings they constructed as curule aedile, what Cicero thought about their oratorical skills, who their colleagues in office were... in short, the kinds of things that go towards making a good biographical article about a person, but which have no place in a brief summary of dozens of related individuals. P Aculeius (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the family was particularly devoted to a certain saint and built or helped building a church, or the fact that that same family followed a certain policy are not "biographical minutiae" and are pertinent to the family as a whole, not to a single person. --TakenakaN (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This needs to go to the relevant talk pages, or to be reframed in terms of what principles can apply in general to the treatment of gentes. There seems to be some disagreement about what a gens article should do. Could we start a new discussion, general in scope, on the elements of a gens page? I agree that individuals who have their own articles should simply be identified by date and a couple of pieces of info; individuals about whom little is known can (in my view) be covered within the listing of names on the gens page, as long as the entry is a paragraph or less. But there are other issues, such as what constitutes a proper gens introduction. And the difference between genealogy and prosopography. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Anicii of the Western Empire promoted the independence of the Western half from the Eastern one, even collaborating with Ostrogothic king (one of them explicitly praised the Anicii as a whole, not some of them alone. This is a kind of information that is related to the whole family and, therefore, should go in the family's article, not in the single person's article. --TakenakaN (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Expert Attention Needed.

In new page patrolling, I picked up a vandal who vandalized List of Roman deities. This page is unreferenced, and I couldn't even see if the original version of the "god" was legitimate or not in a quick web search (lets just say I couldn't find anything with "roman, god, pirate, marcus" and ever other reasonable variation of that name). At it's current state, it is completely unreliable and needs expert attention. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman deities are seldom so obliging. I suggest this list be just that; a simple list of names, minus all supposed categories and summary "definitions", with links to articles. Haploidavey (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are some unaccountable things happening on that page. There is (or was till a moment ago) an entry for "juniel arcal-god of mathematics," a name that googles only to a Friendster page. The Celtic goddess Epona appears as "Hippona," as if the first part of her name is Greek hippos, but the article doesn't include such a form; Epona's inclusion is justified because her feast day appears on a Roman calendar from Cisalpine Gaul, but there seem to be some other Germanic or Celtic deities known from Imperial-era inscriptions — which just raises the question of where to draw the line at what constitutes a "Roman" deity. If the descriptive phrases stay (and they might be useful), they should reiterate the main article (and the main article changed if it's wrong). Cynwolfe (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just scanning down the list last night, it looks like it contains links to most, if not all of the individual entries, which should help to establish its accuracy. Insofar as the list provides only a brief explanation of each, I think that's helpful and that there's no reason to remove those, as long as they appear to be supported by the linked articles to which they relate. They might be reworded if some of them are misleading, but in general they looked like reasonable summaries.

Obviously there's no Roman god of Pirates named "Marcus". Looking through the history of the article it was pretty clear that this was an instance of vandalism, probably by the same person whose edits were recently reverted. It was inserted at the same time as one of two modern names (not just personal names, but full names), and later edited down to just "Marcus" after the vandalism was reverted. I believe the other one (looks like the vandal's girlfriend) was listed as "god of mathematics". Marcus is a Roman praenomen (personal name) derived from the god Mars. So it's not the name of another god. And just to be sure I checked in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. But it was already pretty clear that there isn't one. So you (or someone else) can just remove that. P Aculeius (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency

There are inconsistency in the article Aventicum: “The Bois de Châtel would be destroyed early in the 1 th Century AD” 1th is not the truth. It may be 1st or it may be 4th, 5th ... It is possible that the number is wrong, or the “th” is wrong. I do not know what of that is wrong or true. Please check it. --Diwas (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just a typographical error, or typo. Fixed two errors in the article (there was one instance of a "2^th Century" in there). P Aculeius (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman religion vs. mythology

I've noticed several articles that begin "In Roman mythology" and then go on to talk about ritual or cult, and not "mythology." By "cult", I also mean articles that deal with relatively minor or obscure deities that are known from archaeology and inscriptions or from non-narrative mentions in ancient works. This would then be a matter of "Religion in ancient Rome," and the phrase should be something like "In ancient Roman religion."

Another point to be made is that "mythology" ≠ "myth." A myth is a story, a narrative; mythology is the systematic study of myths, or myths as conceived as a network of interconnecting narratives. A deity like Angerona or Mutunus Tutunus has no "mythology," because they have no narrative tradition that's come down to us.

Even with major deities who do have an extensive narrative tradition, such as Juno and Venus, I would raise accuracy and POV questions about starting the article "In Roman mythology", since the articles on the major Roman deities then go on usually to list cult titles, for instance, or festivals and temples associated with the deity. These are not the concerns of "mythology," but of religious studies. Shouldn't such articles begin "In ancient Roman religion and myth"? These articles do summarize myths pertaining to the gods; they don't always cover "mythology," which would be a look at theoretical and artistic interpretations of the narratives. (And articles need to distinguish between "myths," or the traditional stories about the deity as told in the ancient sources themselves, and "mythology," the interpretations of Frazer, Dumézil, Lévi-Strauss, Girard, Burkert et al.)

For example, it's standard to call Ovid's Metamorphoses a mythological poem, in the sense that it's a work of art that draws on the network of mythic narratives, or to describe a wall painting at Pompeii as mythological in subject matter — the difference being that these works are aesthetic and broadly cultural, not religious texts or devotionals. By contrast, the Orphic tablets are devotional or religious objects, and not "mythological" in nature or purpose, though they may allude to myths. "Mythological" is also the correct term to describe art or literature created in the Christian era that depicts Greek and Roman myths, as in "mythological paintings of the 19th century".

I say this in connection to recent valiant efforts on the Religion in ancient Rome page by Haploidavey and others. Some of the problems in the most important articles within this topic might have to do with less-than-careful use and understanding of words such as "religion," "ritual," "myth," "mythography," and "mythology." Applause to those attempting to improve the main article. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Have you thought of cross-posting to the Mythology project as the same issues may arise in other areas?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd want to think about it and refine my thoughts through what others have to say, so I could put it more succinctly. I don't want to sound as if I'm saying "Mythologists, keep your hands off," which I'm not at all — just asking that we think about how we use these terms. Presenting pantheons is a task pertaining to mythology, and the theorists I mentioned have as much to say about religious studies as mythology. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very glad you brought this up. Quite a few disambiguation pages point helpfully and inappropriately towards "mythology"; for example, dea Roma, who has no mythology at all, unless we include (as we probably should not) the doubtful and poetic Rhome. The relationship between mythography and mythology can be tricky, though. Where does someone like Euhemerus fit? Haploidavey (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I should make clear that I'm not talking about categories, which is something I just realized I don't care about. Or not till I understand their purpose better. And I'm not asking for us to arrive at definitions of these terms by committee, because if G.S. Kirk can't define myth, I'm not going to try either. It's more a plea that editors think through these things to the best of their ability. Your example of Roma (mythology) is exactly what I'm talking about, though: Roma doesn't really have a mythology. She doesn't really have myths. She's a deity. Are we afraid we're endorsing belief if we call a god a god? I think Venus (deity) is much better than Venus (mythology) — but that ship has sailed long ago, and doing anything about it would require vast and disruptive effort. I've also probably reached the limits of my interest in issues of naming articles. But in writing articles, especially in those lead sentences, I do think we can exercise more care in asking ourselves whether we're about to discuss religious practice, or narratives, or both ("in ancient Roman religion and myth" for most major deities, especially those cross-identified with the Greek). Cynwolfe (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this started with the hard-to-classify: Is Heracles a god or a hero? Yes. Aeneas? No. Romulus? And so on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds plausible. But I'm not talking about naming articles, or the need to disambiguate Mars (planet) and Mars (god). I'm talking about how you frame or introduce an article. Here's an example I changed recently: In ancient Roman religion, the Manes were the souls of deceased loved ones. As minor spirits, they were similar to the Lares, Genii, and Di Penates. They were honored during the Parentalia and Feralia in February. Originally, this article began In Roman mythology, the Manes ... — but the article never once used the words 'myth' or 'mythology' after that. It's entirely about religious beliefs and ritual practices, which is what you would expect with the Manes. It would be like starting an article with "In Christian mythology, the military saints were venerated at shrines … " Cynwolfe (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

A user is adding content based on on-line sources such as this http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=bernd-jansen&id=I32229

Is such kind of sources considered reliable? --TakenakaN (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the statements that are based on those sources? Should they be kept with a "citation need" tag, should they be removed...?--TakenakaN (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Tag with {{cn}} - and if possible check yourself. If you find something different in genuinely reliable sources, put it in; if you find rootsweb is right, replace with a real citation; if you find nothing, allow a reasonable time (weeks feels right - we're in no rush), and remove the claim to talk if nothing has been done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Improper deletion of content

As you may recall, last week Takenakan substantially revised the article Anicia (gens) which I had written, in ways that I felt were incompatible with the nature and goals of that article. Because the content added was substantially different both in content and format, I split the topic into two separate articles, which after two days of debate Takenakan remerged over my objections, omitting most of the debate from the talk page, and making the merger appear uncontroversial.

Since that time he has continued to edit and delete my content, over my repeated objections, based on what I consider his own editorial preferences. He has deleted properly sourced and cited names, supported by both the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology and the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, merely because his more recent prosographical index omits them, and insists that he will not acknowledge their validity unless I produce the specific epigraphic evidence upon which those articles were based, because they were "written in the 19th century".

For the same reason he has deleted the filiations for individuals whose fathers or grandfathers were known, on the grounds that "persons in late imperial times did not use filiations", and he refuses to acknowledge their validity despite evidence in the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft that they were still used. He insists that I provide separate proof for each individual before he will allow the content to remain as originally entered.

Takenakan also insists on altering my text from praefectus urbi, the title historically given to the praefectus of Rome, to praefectus urbi of Rome each time that it occurs, on the grounds that the title was also given also to the praefectus of Constantinople in late imperial times. I have repeatedly explained that the words need no clarification when given their usual meaning, which always refers to the praefectus of Rome. It only becomes necessary to explain the words when some other use is intended, as in the case of Constantinople or some other town.

He has also insisted on changing references to the Macedonian War to read "Third Macedonian War", even though my sources make clear that the words Macedonian War normally refer to that war unless some qualifier is added, and despite the fact that the words Macedonian War in the article were linked directly to the article on the said war, and were immediately followed by the date of 168 B.C., which should have been sufficient to remove all doubt.

In my opinion these changes, and especially the deletion of properly sourced and cited content, are based on nothing more than Takenakan's editorial preferences. They are the way he would have chosen to write the article if he had done so instead of me. He has made it perfectly clear that he does not accept my explanations, that he will delete such content whenever he finds it in the article, and revert any edits that do not meet with his approval. In effect he has taken possession of the article that I wrote and appointed himself the sole judge of what is allowed in it. He rejects any suggestion that he should write his own article the way he thinks it should be written. As his justification he quotes the following: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

I find this situation frustrating and intolerable, and I would like a second opinion. P Aculeius (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The above arguments by Aculeius require some clarifications, as they do not present the situation in an impartial way, but rather only his own POV.

The separation of the article Anicia (gens) into two parts was performed by him without any previous discussion and was highly controversial. After two days of discussions, I merged the two articles keeping Aculeius' structure and removing the content he considered supported by unreliable sources (that content is now in the article's talk page).

As regards the deletion of "properly sourced and cited names", he is talking about Boethius (consul 522) (the son of Boethius), whom he wants to call "Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius", and is brother Symmachus (consul 522), whom he wants to call "Aurelius Anicius Symmachus". His sources are the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, a 1849 dictionary, and the prestigious but sometimes antiquated Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft (RE); actually the RE, in its 1897 article "Boëthius 4" (I don't own the RE, this is the only source I could find), calls this Boethius only "Boethius", not "Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius" (I could not find the exact reference for "Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius" in DGRBM). On the other side, the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire lists several primary sources and states clearly that in those sources the consul of 522 is called either "Flavius Boethius" or simply "Boethius"; the same goes for his brother. I do not rule out the possibility that PLRE is wrong, but I think that the burden of proof is to be set on RE/DGRBM primary sources, and should not be ignored out of respect for authority of these 19th century secondary sources.

Aculeius also wants to add filiations (the abbreviations of patronymic names, such as "Marcus M. f. C. n. Anicius") even if this forms are not attested by any source, neither for the particular individual nor for the period in which he lived in. He produced sources for two filiations in the Constantinian age, and wants to extend reconstructed filiations (since he has no sources, he needs to reconstruct these filiations) for later people. I demanded to find sources for these later filiations.

As regards the praefectus urbi, Aculeius correctly says that it was originally an office instituted only for the city of Rome, and that only in the late Empire there was also a praefectus urbi of Constantinople. What he does not say is that I inserted the specification "or Rome" next to those occurrences of this magistracy in times when there were both offices, that is after the foundation of Constantinople. As the reader of the article is told that the family had branches both in Constantinople and in Rome, I think it is useful to clearly indicate whether we are talking about a praefectus of Rome or of Constantinople.

Aculeius insists to hide the fact that, when he writes about the "Macedonian War", he means the "Third Macedonian War". I don't really understand this, as he goes so far as to pipe the wikilink in order to hide the "Third" part of the title Third Macedonian War, on the basis that he and his sources mean the Third war when they talk about "Macedonian War". I think that this untold assumption can't be assumed to be universally accepted, and that the reader of the article would benefit from a clearer and unambiguous exposition of the content.

I do not want to frustrate Aculeius, whose contributions to the project are many and praiseworthy, and I am sorry if he meant as an offence to him my underlining of the mutability of the text of the article. But fairness and cooperation should not hide the fact that we strive to write an encyclopaedia as correct and precise as possible, and that, in my opinion, his modifications do not reach this target. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, the details of this discussion belong on an article talk page, where I think I was the only one who made an attempt to mediate. My proposal was that they cut the baby in half, though in alluding to that fable I really did mean they should cut the baby in half, with P Aculeius producing an article on Anicia (gens) for the Republican period and TakenakaN one on (now a redirect? improperly merged?) Anicia (late Imperial family). Sometimes two editors have contributions to make and just can't play well together because they're trying to organize the material differently, or they're after different aims (there may be a difference here between genealogy and prosopography). This proposal to divide the material seemed acceptable to one editor and not to the other.

Since I can't honestly say that any of the Anicii have captured my attention, I don't have a dog in this fight. It's evident that other G&R project members don't either. There are arbitration procedures to which editors with more tenure than I may be able to direct you. Someone who can read the Italian scholarship with confidence than I can would be a useful voice too. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to call the late Romans Anicii (implication of substantives is likely to be confusing to our readers); but Cynwolfe's suggestion seems reasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you (Cynwolfe & Septentrionalis) saying that it is good to have two articles not because they deal with two different arguments but because they have two different authors? Does the fact that Aculeius does not like my edits justify the split of the article? I truly can't understand. If he thinks that the son of Boethius was called "Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius", does it matter in which article this is written? If I think that it is better to write "Third Macedonian War" in full, will I be banned from editing "Aculeius' article"? --TakenakaN (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that you could develop the late Imperial article, and P Aculeius could develop the article on the Republican gens, because the approaches differ. This is not surprising, given the major changes in Roman society from the Republic to the late Empire. Nobody's 'banned' from anything; I'm encouraging a voluntary drawing of boundaries. By 'develop," I mean provide both the overall structure (as reflected by subheads etc.) and the 'narrative' content for the article you're most interested in. And then you deal with the article developed by the other editor primarily by providing links and 'see also' bells and whistles, not through restructuring or by adding paragraphs of content. I'm not taking any sides here. At some point in the future, it might be beneficial to have third parties examine a merge, but I don't see either of you as individuals getting anywhere like this, and nobody else right now seems passionately interested in the Anicii (Anicii (late Imperial family) seems better to me too, but then in general I prefer the masculine plural to the collective feminine). Why not just work on the half of the topic that interests each of you for now, and see what happens? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We can also work on two separate articles, but open issues will stay open. If Aculeius knows that the name of ~~Bohetius'~~ Boethius' son is given incorrectly in "my" article, he should correct it, and the same goes the other direction. For this reason your solution seems (to me) to solve nothing. What you all could do, according to me, is to help in the settlement of the above open points; you could not care about the Anicii, but you should (according to me) be interested in how sources are used to support statements. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

' If Aculeius knows that the name of ~~Bohetius~~ Boethius' son is given incorrectly in "my" article, he should correct it, and the same goes the other direction': that's what I tried to say. Develop the structure and overall presentation of content in the article that covers your topic, and make point-by-point edits in the other. Articles regularly present both sides if sources conflict. Evaluating your sources, T, requires a good knowledge of Italian. My Italian is rudimentary; there may be G&R project members with fluent Italian who would help. My proposal is meant to create a more workable process or format for resolving the questions; it is not, as you say, the solution. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This fraught discussion is disorienting to me, and I don't have much to add. But two quick points. First, I agree with Aculeius that the separate interests or perspectives of editors per se must not be the basis for bifurcating into two articles (WP:POVFORK). If, however, the social classification "Anicius" is a distinct enough subject in the two periods, the separation would be legitimate and not offensive to any Wikipedia policy. For example, we routinely have separate articles for ancient, Byzantine, or modern cities; it's a reasonable way of dividing up a large subject into coherent sub-subjects. Obviously, if there were two articles, the one on the Roman gens would end with a pointer to the Late Antique Anicii, and the latter article would begin with a reference back to the article on the name in earlier times. In any case, I trust it's obvious to everyone that, while the more deeply committed editor of each article might inevitably leave the imprint of their style of adding good content to Wikipedia (this is true on every page of Wikipedia to which a given editor has made a substantial contribution), there is no ownership, and every Wikipedia editor is always welcome to edit every article, including airing differences of approach and formatting. In sum, I hope that if the subject matter division is not artificial, and if it might lead to more amicable collaboration on improving these articles, then the division will be seriously considered. I'm especially moved to comment in order to insist that the proposal not be dismissed because of concerns (POV-forking, ownership) that I know all of the good-faith editors here will agree in repudiating!

Second, I absolutely cannot make myself expert enough in this subject to help with the content itself, but my Italian is all right, and if a good understanding of some specific Italian source(s) is helpful to the development of an article, I would try to respond to such a request. Wareh (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for citing specific policies. I agree with everything you said. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I truly don't understand your position, but I am alone to support my position, so I must bow to majority. Do as you please. --TakenakaN (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to including late imperial Anicii in this article. But their entries should be brief and linked to individual articles, where minute details such as the saints to which they were devoted, the basilicas they erected, the popes to whom they were related, where they owned land, and what other people thought of them, can be properly developed. If it's desirable or necessary to discuss a whole group of individuals in such detail, then a separate article concerning just that portion of the family seems like a reasonable solution.

The reason why I'm unhappy is that much of the content I added to the original page was deleted due solely to what I consider to be another person's editorial preferences. If information (such as a person's name) is properly cited to a reliable source, it should not be deleted merely because a different source does not contain it. The person who contributed it should not be required to prove that the source was accurate; the burden should be on the editor who believes it is unreliable to provide justification for removing it. If someone merely wishes to question the source, that's what the talk page is for.

The decision to change praefectus urbi to praefectus urbi of Rome and "The Macedonian War" to "The Third Macedonian War" was, I felt, unnecessary because these terms were not ambiguous; praefectus urbi always refers to the prefect of Rome unless some other place is specified; "The Macedonian War" generally refers to the third Macedonian War; the term was directly linked to the specific conflict, and a date was given. I objected to these changes and gave these reasons, which were ignored. I could, of course, revert them back, but since it is evident that the changes would simply be undone again, that seems quite futile.

What I object to is that someone else has decided that his choices are better than mine, that my reasons are not good enough, that my sources may be disregarded simply because other sources fail to confirm them. I feel that my contributions (and my writing style) are as worthwhile and deserving of respect as those of other editors, and should not be disregarded simply because someone else would have done things differently. P Aculeius (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Wareh's point, I think, was that a case can be made for splitting off into two articles on the basis of distinguishable content, which (I was fumbling to try to say) can require different approaches in terms of structure and types of discussion. Individual 'writing style' is simply not an issue on Wikipedia. It's writing by committee. When wit or stylishness creep in, it's a result of content getting the better of the affectless style. My favorite example has been the following from a former featured article:

Mary Toft (née Denyer; c. 1701–1763), also spelled Tofts, was an English woman from Godalming, Surrey, who in 1726 became the subject of considerable controversy when she tricked doctors into believing that she had given birth to rabbits.

Would that every first sentence in Wikipedia articles could roll like a grand ciceronian period to culminate in a single word as richly rewarding as that 'rabbits.' Anicii who gave birth to rabbits or any other small mammals would be well worth dropping everything to research. Pliny, perhaps … ? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My thanks and apologies, Cynwolfe. You always seem to say what I should have said in at least two fewer paragraphs than it took me to say something else. What I meant to say is, if something is clearly and demonstrably wrong, then of course there can be no objection to changing it. But if Wikipedia is built on the principle of coöperation, editors should not delete information, or make significant alterations to wording, based merely on their stylistic preferences, or because they prefer one source over another. P Aculeius (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The problems are that clearly explaining to your reader what are you talking about is not a matter of style; furthermore, removing an identification that has no ground in modern studies, but relies only on 19th century sources is an improvement of the article. And this stands whether the articles are one or two. --TakenakaN (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that someone's name "has no ground in modern studies" implies that some recent source refutes it. In fact, you have stated only that they do not contain it. You cannot simply disregard information because the source is old. If your source specifically addressed the issue and stated, "this name has no support in contemporary sources, but appears to be a later interpolation", or "this name appears to have resulted from confusion between two different persons", then there would be some grounds for deleting it. "My source doesn't mention this" is not grounds for deleting content cited from another source. If the later source doesn't even address the issue, then it's not clear that there is a conflict. Even if there were a conflict, it could not be resolved simply by preferring the later source to the older one, without any consideration of the evidence. P Aculeius (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"No grounds in recent studies" means that I found no reference of those names in recent sources, which systematically call those persons "Boethius" and "Symmachus"; PLRE lists all the sources it knows about these two persons and explicitly says that they are called "~~Bohetius~~ Boethius" or "Flavius ~~Bohetius~~ Boethius" and "Symmachus" or "Flavius Symmachus", which, for me, is a clear statement that other names are not known. The only reference for those names are, according to you, in RE and in DGRBM (and I would ask you to give the exact reference for them, as in the on-line versions of this work I did not find them), which are 19th century sources; I asked you to provide at least the primary sources they rely upon, but you refused.

According to me, the burden of proof is on you, as I can't prove a negation, if my sources do not care to state it expressly. --TakenakaN (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why you had trouble finding the article, as I told you it's listed under Boëthius, in the very first column. Here's a direct link to the on-line version: DGRBM s. v. Boëthius. And if, as you say, your source doesn't "care to state it expressly", then it simply isn't proof that past scholarship is wrong. P Aculeius (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. You can see, however, how the names of Boethius' sons are supported by one passage in the Consolatio philosophiae (II.3.4) in which their name is not written, as PLRE clearly states. On the other side, both RE ("Boëthius 4") and PLRE state that his name was "Boethius", alone. It looks like DGRBM is the only source to support those names, should we keep them until I find a source that states clearly that DGRBM is wrong? --TakenakaN (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's far from the only source. These names were known and used in scholarly works almost two hundred years (if not more) before the DGRBM was published. I believe these notes were given by Fabricius in the Bibliotheca Latina (1697), and he attributes the biographical data to Procopius: Notitia Literaria de Severino Boethio, ex Jo. Alb. Fabricii Bibliotheca Latina. See also Nicolas Lenglet-Dufresnoy, Chronological Tables of Universal History (London, 1762), p. 232. These names were also given in the 1910 Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I note the only disagreement is whether one of the sons was Quintus Aurelius Anicius Symmachus or Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus (found only in the Britannica), but I think that Memmius must be an error, because there seems to have been a different person with that exact name, with whom he has been confused. It has taken me hours to track down these sources and references, and the only reason I was able to do so is because the books in question are now in the public domain. I'm sure there must be more recent works that accept these conclusions, even if I'm not in a position to find it.

But the point is, the data was reliable, found in a reliable source and cited to other reliable sources, which you dismissed merely because they were old and because your book didn't confirm the names. Your whole argument was that if it wasn't in your book, then it wasn't to be believed in the absence of indisputable proof that your book was wrong. By that logic, we should now disregard the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire wherever it conflicts with sources that appear to be more reliable. But that argument would be specious. I believe my point is proven. Content found in one source should not be deleted merely because another source fails to confirm it, even if one source is old and the other new. Surely it would be better to place such concerns on the discussion page, or add a footnote stating that something is uncertain. Then others can add their own comments about these concerns, or, turn up the missing documentation. You can't do that when the content has simply been deleted. P Aculeius (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are claiming that we must use that name because it is attested by secondary sources until 1910, despite the fact that you found no later source that support those names! We should write an article based on 100 years old studies, against recent studies! I can't believe it.

Besides, RE does not attest those names, should we dismiss it? Is the DGRBM the definitive source for Roman history? --TakenakaN (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we turn down the heat just a little? I think P Aculeius makes an entirely reasonable point: "Content found in one source should not be deleted merely because another source fails to confirm it, even if one source is old and the other new". I suggest neither source should be regarded as definitive; where differences are found, state them with clear attribution. Haploidavey (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not only that it is old, it is not only that it is unsupported by primary sources, it is not only because recent studies do not confirm it; it's old, and unsupported by primary sources, and ignored by recent studies. The RE says the name was Boethius, the PLRE says the name was Boethius, no primary source has been presented that attests any other name than Boethius, recent studies refer only Boethius, yet we are to assume that the all forget to tell us that the name is Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius? What if all modern scholars dismiss this name, but fail to write it in full? Should we keep an error just because modern studies do no explicitly say that a particular name is wrong?

Aculeius says that in Britannica it is said that the name was Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus, but he dismiss it because he thinks it is a mistake caused by the confusion with another Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus. Yet "Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius" is the same name of his father, and "Aurelius Anicius Symmachus" is clearly a confusion with Aurelius Anicius Symmachus: why does he not dismiss these names too? --TakenakaN (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You ask "Should we keep an error just because modern studies do no explicitly say that a particular name is wrong?" No, as far as I know, we don't publish error just to refute it. But your question's preemptive. I assume that P Aculeius' source is scholarly, not ripe with egregious errors and has sufficient reputation within its own field to be used as reference by contemporary and later scholars. If so, it's a valid source. A later edition - assuming there is one - might or might not address possible errata; but in the meantime, yes, as far as I'm concerned, that makes it a valid specialist source even if it's wrong. If the scholarship makes no judgment against it, nor do we - leastwise not in our articles. Its single entry on the name can be offered alongside the mutually supported versions offered by other, equally specialised sources. "X" says this and "A" to "Y" say that. No ifs or buts required; no particular puppy need be flayed here. Haploidavey (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No contemporary or later scholars claimed anything like those names based on DGRBM, as Aculeius himself admitted. Furthermore, no primary source nor 20th century secondary sources support that reconstruction. I think there is plenty of reasons to reject them. --TakenakaN (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort. What I actually said was that these names appear to have been cited to Procopius (I can check later today and find if this is the correct attribution). Both Fabricius and the DGRBM include this citation, and the Britannica also gives Procopius as an authority, although without showing precisely which statements are based on his history. I said that I was able to find these references because they were in the public domain, and therefore findable (with a lot of searching) over the internet. But most scholarly materials one could refer to for information of this sort is not widely available outside of major academic libraries. This includes nearly all sources that are less than a hundred years old, most of which are not in the public domain. P Aculeius (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Procopius says that Amalasuntha "even restored to the children of Symmachus and Boethius their fathers' estates"; as you see, apart the mistake in considering them sons of Boethius and Symmachus, he says nothing of their "complete" names. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If I can chime in again from the margins, I'd tend to believe that if RE credited the existence or proper nomenclature of persons, and in fact subsequent scholarship has revealed this to be an error, then there ought to be, somewhere, a positive (not argumentum ex silentio) rejection of the old error and statement of the new truth (even if that truth is only to diagnose exactly what kind of fiction previous understanding of sources had perpetrated). There are still corners of classical scholarship where the fragments and details were last examined carefully in the 19th century. I'm not saying this is one of them (please forgive me for my inability to dive into the details with you in order to be more helpful at this point in my life), but it's a relative matter, so there's a whole spectrum of possibilities. We can probably admit, at the same time, that depending on where we are on that spectrum, an argumentum ex silentio might have more or less practical force, while also appreciating that Wikipedia needs better sources than this sort of evaluative inference. I hope this can be taken as encouragement to get to the bottom of it. Neither RE nor the absence of ink in a recent reference work meets the highest standard for a good source. Wareh (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I am sitting in an academic library devoted to Greek matters, but it has basic reference works, periodicals, and other books beyond that scope (e.g. The prosopography of the later Roman Empire). But I get the impression the obstacles to consensus here are stronger than problems of inaccessibility. Anyway, I don't have any illusions of being spectacularly helpful, mainly because I haven't even yet wrapped my mind around what the problem here is with confusing shadow Boethii etc. However, if someone wants to boil down a question to a specific check of what some source (in any major modern language or Greek or Latin) has to say about some issue that can be conveyed to a nonspecialist, let me know. Wareh (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This means that if I find an ancient source that states that Gaius Julius Caesar was actually called Gaius Julius Caesar Verrucosus, I can add the name to the article, because no subsequent study explicitly rejects this name? It looks absurd. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That conclusion is not logically derivable from what I said, and I don't endorse it. If there is only one ancient source as evidence for something, and scholarly secondary sources consider the ancient source unreliable and wrong on that point, then that's the "positive rejection" to which I referred, and that's reason enough for making sure that the editorial voice of a Wikipedia article does not assert the truth of the fact expressed in the ancient source. (On the other hand, it may still be worth noting that the ancient source says it, even if it's not acceptable as a fact for us.) Wareh (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you say, but my case is different. Assume that a 19th century secondary source states that the complete name was Gaius Julius Caesar Verrucosus, but no other sources that confutes this particular error (which is the case of those names), should we mention this name in Caesar's article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakenakaN (talk • contribs)

I've just returned from the library, where the RE is packed away in boxes in the basement and nobody has had time to retrieve the volumes that I requested on Monday. I was able to examine all of Procopius on the theory that the citations given by Fabricius and the DGRBM were to a different book or volume than the ones found in other printed copies. I checked the indices of each volume and the cumulative index, and examined every reference to Boëthius or his sons. They are certainly mentioned, but their names are not given.

This means that for the time being we do not know the original source for the names Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius and (Quintus) Aurelius Anicius (or Memmius) Symmachus. But I did find yet another encyclopedia providing that information. The Grand Dictionnaire Universel du XIX^E Siècle, M. Pierre Larousse ed., Paris (1867) states: Boëce en eut deux fils: Aurelius-Anicius Symmachus et Anicius-Manlius-Severinus Boethius, qui devaient être élevés en même temps à la dignité consulaire en 522.

So what we have is information that was widely accepted from at least the 17th Century to the 20th, and how far beyond that we do not know. The most recent Britannica at the library omits the names entirely, but this appears to be because the entire article on Boëthius has been greatly abbreviated since 1910. Since the names are not expressly contradicted and no evidence disproving them has been found thus far, it seems that the best course would be to include them in the article, with a note explaining that the original source has yet to be determined, but that much briefer names are given in the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire.

I'm sure we're all smart enough to recognize the difference between an obvious mistake, such as Gaius Julius Caesar Verrucosus, and names that have been accepted by the best authorities for hundreds of years, even if we're not sure of the original source. P Aculeius (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Widely accepted" is your POV. What we have is a name that has not been supported by serious scholarship after the end of the 19th century (you forget that the 1910 Britannica has another name you claim to be a mistake), and, what is even more important, without any support from primary sources. Adding those names to the relative pages would be a huge mistake, acceptable in the 19th century but unacceptable in the 21st.

As regards Verrucosus, this example shows that your line of argument, that a name supported by an ancient source and never explicitly rejected is valid, leads to wrong decisions. You say that "Gaius Julius Caesar Verrucosus" is clearly wrong, how do you know that "Aurelius Anicius Symmachus" is not? --TakenakaN (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If Fabricius' Biblotheca Latina, the Chronological Tables of Universal History, the original Larousse encyclopedia, the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology and the Encyclopedia Britannica do not constitute "widely accepted", then it is clear that nothing will be good enough to meet your standards. There's absolutely no grounds to assert that the names have "not been supported by serious scholarship after the end of the 19th century". Nobody here knows that because nobody has had the time to search for more recent documentation. And apparently in order to include the word "19th century" in your argument, you reject the Encyclopedia Britannica in its entirety, on no other ground than that it gives one of the names slightly differently from the four other sources. But slight differences in the source material are not grounds for excluding one or all of the sources and the information included.

According to most of these old sources, Boëthius the father was named Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius or, according to some better manuscripts, Boëtius, to which some sources prefix Flavius and others include Torquatus following Manlius. So there has never been absolute agreement as to the complete name. This uncertainty dates back to the middle ages. I'm curious as to whether The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire discusses this issue, since it seems rather important from a prosopographical point of view. Boëthius was raised by the Aurelii Symmachi following the death of his own father, and he married a daughter of Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus. So if we follow the scholarly tradition from the 17th Century to the 20th, one of Boëthius' sons was named after himself, and the other was named after his father-in-law, being either (Quintus) Aurelius Anicius Symmachus or (Quintus) Aurelius Memmius Symmachus, or perhaps even Quintus Aurelius Anicius Memmius Symmachus. These names, given in the old sources, are entirely consistent with Roman practice.

Because all but one of the sources clearly prefer (Quintus) Aurelius Anicius Symmachus, that seems to be the best candidate for inclusion. If subsequent investigation turns up a discussion of the name that explains why Memmius was preferred by the Britannica, then it might be reasonable to change to that. But it is not appropriate to exclude data from the article merely because we have not discovered the original sources of the names. If you cannot turn up even one scholarly source stating that the names are incorrect or unsupported, and giving a clear explanation for that conclusion, then they have not been refuted and should not be excluded from the article. P Aculeius (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We are not writing a 19th century Encyclopaedia, so no, 17th and 19th century works are not authoritative sources to find current consensus among scholars, even more when these 19th century works are unsupported by primary sources (the Britannica gives a different name, that you claim to be a mistake, on what authority I fail to understand; furthermore, also Britannica is 100 years old).

Now, as primary sources and all modern secondary sources do not support those names, this means that those names must be considered 17th-19th speculations and handled as such. Modern scholarship, as clearly stated by secondary sources of the last 100 years, considers those people's name Boethius and Symmachus; that's all. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I just have one point to reiterate. 19th century work in the RE should presumptively be taken as valid and authoritative work in Classics. This is not molecular biology we're talking about. A "100 year" rule for this subject matter is arbitrary and inappropriate. RE was written by the best experts, who generally had equal or superior mastery over the sources to their predecessors; and the sources have in many cases not been added to. In my opinion, the standard for using RE should be the same as for a reference work published in 1950: namely, it is a solid WP:RS and can be relied upon except where later work has clearly and positively disputed its account, with an explanation of the findings or evidence that require the revision. Granted, RE is infinitely better work than Smith and some of the others. (I'm stating a general principle: I have no idea whether the standard I suggest for subsequent revision applies here or not.)

So, on a separate point, since this is taking up so much space on a very general message board, could the parties here please agree to a one-sentence statement of the factual dispute(s)? I.e., "Was [identification of person] correctly named [A] or [B]?" I know I could extract this myself, but I'm sure you can see that there are a lot of words spread up above among which I could well fear I was missing something. If we have a clearly agreed upon issue, perhaps at some point some more editors will be moved to find information bearing on the answer. Wareh (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I second Wareh on RE and Münzer in particular. When on occasion Broughton, Syme, Wiseman et al. have to dispute Münzer and other 19th-century authorities, it's often on the basis of new archaeological evidence (such as inscriptions), or ambiguous ancient sources that can legitimately be construed in different ways — but they still make reference to RE as the standard source. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wareh, RE states that the name is Boethius, is that clear? According to Aculeius, RE and all the other sources are "forgetting" to tell the whole names.

Returning to our matter, we writing a 21st century Encyclopaedia, so our question is "what is the current consensus about this matter"? As far as we know, all of the recent scholars talk about Boethius and Symmachus; to support other names we need to go back 100 years, not exactly my definition of recent. (RE was written by great scholars, who, however, missed over 100 years of archeological and textual research) --TakenakaN (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Could I again second Wareh in this: The project talk page should be used for discussing general issues that affect a substantial number of articles, and for eliciting opinions regarding disputes on specific pages — calling attention to them, but not carrying out those discussions. A general discussion of what kind of sources are 'valid' belongs here on the project talk page; the orthography of Boethius and Symmachus, not. For that you just say something like: 'There's a debate going on at Talk:Insert Name of Article Here over the correct forms of the names Boethius and Symmachus. Could we get some other opinions?' Cynwolfe (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, the problem is not the name, the problem is the reliability of the sources. Where should we go to discuss what's the correct way to consider the case of contrasting sources? Please, tell me, I will gladly leave the page to other, more important matters. --TakenakaN (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable, Cynwolfe. My position is that sources such as Fabricius, Larousse Encyclopedia, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, earlier editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the RE, and soforth, are scholarly sources of long standing, and that the content of those sources is presumptively valid, unless it is either the product of obvious error (as in the case of "Gaius Julius Caesar Verrucosus"), or it is explicitly contradicted by another source, which must give some logical reason for its disagreement, and which ought to be presented in the body of the article as a substantive change in scholarly opinion. I do not think that the mere omission of data in a later source, however scholarly, without any further explanation, can be interpreted as a substantive change. The latest details of my investigation are discussed on the Anicia (gens) talk page. P Aculeius (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I must ask again, as no answer has been given. Are we writing an Encyclopaedia fo the 19th or for the 21st century? Should we represent the consensus among recent scholars or put all the secondary sources on the same level? In modern scholarship, all the secondary sources use the short names; furthermore, no primary source has been found to support the longer names.

This is not a debate on the correct names, this is a debate on what we are going to write and what scholarship are we going to represent. --TakenakaN (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wareh answered your question about the proper use of standard 19th-century sources in the field of classical studies. To return to your question earlier, when good sources conflict, you just say in the article something like 'Although Münzer identified this Valerius as the suffect consul of 86 BC, Syme and Wiseman have argued that the inscription refers to his son, the praetor of 63." With footnotes. (This is a fabricated example.) What's the problem? (I'm sure I'll be sorry I asked.) Cynwolfe (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wareh didn't answer to the question if this project should follow recent or old scholarship. He said that 19th century scholarship was sometimes better than modern one, but we have two contrasting statements and we have to decide which one we should follow.

As regards your proposal, I have nothing against mentioning the fact that some ancient secondary sources reconstructed the long names; it would be like mentioning historical geocentric models. But one thing is telling the existence of a reconstruction, another is its endorsement. It must be clear to the reader that no primary source and no modern secondary source support those reconstructions, as it is clear that the heliocentric model is the one endorsed by modern scholarship. --TakenakaN (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not the job of Wikipedia to decide which sources are right and which are wrong. That would constitute original research. If some source explicitly stated that "A" is right and "B" is wrong, and gave some logical basis for that conclusion, that fact could be properly included in the article (perhaps in the form of a footnote, depending on how important the issue is to the article as a whole). But it would be the fact that the source said so that would be included. Contradictory or historical opinions cannot simply be ignored even if a very good reason exists for concluding that it is mistaken. Cynwolfe provided a very good example of this above.

It is also important that such notes about conflicting information be discussed without the appearance of editorial bias, such as exaggeration or hyperbole. Describing the 1910 Britannica or the other sources discussed in this topic as "ancient" would be misleading in the context of the article in question, where "ancient" normally refers to events of the classical period. There is no evidentiary basis for referring to the challenged material as "speculation" or "reconstruction". Comparing the conclusions of older scholarship to the geocentric model of the universe would indicate a strong editorial bias. Rather than presenting the conclusions of scholars investigating the issue, that would be passing judgment on their conclusions, in violation of Wikipedia policy. And, as noted above by several different people, there is no basis for dismissing the whole of 19th century scholarship (to say nothing of earlier research), merely because some of it has been superseded by more recent research. Modern classical scholarship owes a great deal to the 19th century, and earlier research. P Aculeius (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Haploidavey (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"It's not the job of Wikipedia to decide which sources are right and which are wrong." Right, but it is our job to decide which are reliable and which are not (see the next section); and which are representative of modern scholarship and which not.

"Contradictory or historical opinions cannot simply be ignored even if a very good reason exists for concluding that it is mistaken." Right. But it is wrong to put all secondary sources on the same level; if we are to mirror modern scholarship, we have to prefer modern publications to 19th century ones.

"Describing the 1910 Britannica or the other sources discussed in this topic as "ancient" would be misleading in the context of the article in question, where "ancient" normally refers to events of the classical period." Well, if "ancient" is the problem, let's call them "not-so-moder", or "100-years-and-counting-old".

"there is no basis for dismissing the whole of 19th century scholarship (to say nothing of earlier research), merely because some of it has been superseded by more recent research" This is the problem: 19th century secondary sources represent 19th century scholarship. If we base our research only on that, we are writing a 19th century encyclopaedia.

"Modern classical scholarship owes a great deal to the 19th century, and earlier research." True, but it owes a great deal also to archaeological and textual research; ignoring modern research (what we do if we ignore the fact that modern research studies in favour of 19th century ones) is wrong. --TakenakaN (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindented) I'm way out of my comfort zone on the particulars here but I'm surprised to find you arguing against the unbiased representation of sources; and in what way does the inclusion of one source infer the ignoring of another? I think its been made quite clear that Wikipedia doesn't adopt a partisan approach to material. We don't attend to Truth (or even truth) but accuracy - our own, that is. To hijack your own analogy some posts up: we don't stand with heliocentric Galileo against the geocentric court. We accurately report the trial sources. A similar face-off has cropped up at Sol Invictus where a contributor claimed that recently published work made previous claims irrelevant, "out of date" or just plain "wrong". That's not an editor's decision. Haploidavey (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am arguing against unbiased representation of sources: I am arguing for a presentation biased in favour of scholarship of the last 100 years as opposed to 17th and 19th centuries scholarship. The question you ask ("in what way does the inclusion of one source infer the ignoring of another?") is wrongly composed: it is not "the inclusion" of 19th century sources, but their precedence over recent scholarship that I am against. To continue the analogy, if you use only pre-Copernican sources, you are actually mis-representing "trial sources". --TakenakaN (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you use only pre-Copernican sources there is no trial, therefore nothing to misrepresent. Watersheds are revealed only through hindsight; it might be tempting to see "progress" at work here, but history's a fumbling affair. The same goes, I think, for all scholarship. Sources can be contradictory. We can learn to live with it, I hope. I really don't understand what you mean by "precedence" here. Haploidavey (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"If you use only pre-Copernican sources there is no trial, therefore nothing to misrepresent." ??? I know that you know that Copernican and post-Copernican sources do exist, so why are you saying that ignoring them is not a misrepresentation?

"I really don't understand what you mean by "precedence" here." If you maintain that content supported by 19th century sources must be inserted in the article, despite the fact that content is missing both in primary and in recent secondary source, you are claiming that 19th century sources have some sort of "precedence" (I beg your pardon, I can't find a better word) over modern ones, that 19th century sources are supporting "true" names, while recent scholarship is "forgetting" to report them, just because they do not explicitly state that longer names are wrong. I hope this is now more clear. --TakenakaN (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first: that's not at all what I intended so I'll put it more generally. We don't represent sources with particular favour. If what we have represents only one point of view (pre-Copernican for example), we represent that point of view because we can express no other. If another point of view emerges (Copernican), we represent that as well but until it emerges, there can be no comparison, therefore no trial of views.

Regarding the second, you make yourself clear. I disagree (for all the reasons offered above). With that, I bow out of this debate and wish it the very best of luck. Haploidavey (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We have two points of view, one of recent scholarship (Copernican) and another of 19th century sources (pre-Copernican); however, as we should (according to me) represent the consensus among recent scholars, a bias towards recent sources is inevitable. --TakenakaN (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(Oh well...) The trial analogy's not a good one; it presumes opposition. Your case seems one of difference, omission, whatever, but not conflict. The most recent scholarly sources are preferable, but none is exhaustive. That really is all I have to offer. Haploidavey (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent sources are not exhaustive to represent recent scholarship? I don't think so. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought I said this already, but again: classical scholars of the 21st century will begin a major article or book with a review of whatever scholarship is still considered pertinent to the topic. The first (or second) footnote in articles published in scholarly journals is often half a page in length; this practice can and has been satirized. But it is a mos of the discipline, and it enables an amateur scholar such as ourselves to see what's still considered standard scholarship on whatever topic we're researching. You'll find a range of dates represented from the 19th century to the present.

I utterly do not understand the point T is trying to make regarding the use of sources. Wareh in particular is an experienced editor whose remarks on sources would've seemed to me to clarify all these questions long ago.

When valid sources conflict, just say so.
When valid sources (especially widely used sources such as Smith's or the Britannica) present information that can be shown to be incorrect, it is useful to both users and editors to note that in some way. A footnote citing the source for the correct info could note that Smith's entry, which asserts such-and-such, has been shown to be in error. This is particularly helpful if you're deleting this erroneous info from the main body of the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"I utterly do not understand the point T is trying to make regarding the use of sources." We have to decide the title of the article currently under Symmachus (consul 522). Is it Symmachus (consul 522), according to the way all primary sources and all secondary sources of the last 100 years refer to this person, is it Aurelius Memmius Symmachus, as the 1910 Britannica calls him (recent Britannica calls him Symmachus), is it Aurelius Anicius Symmachus (consul 522) ad 17th and 19th century secondary sources call him? My point is that we should follow recent scholarship, Aculeius' point is that 19th century DGRBM is a reliable source and we should follow it because has not been explicitly refuted. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for clarifying. Can we just call the article Aurelius Symmachus (consul 522)? If the "Aurelius" is not in dispute. Is there something untenable about Symmachus (consul 522)? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This debate was never about changing the titles of the articles on the sons of Boëthius. It was about deleting the full nomenclatures given as links to those articles in the list of members of the gens Anicia on the page Anicia (gens). Those links were, or could easily have been, piped to articles with shorter titles, where the question of their full nomenclature and the sources therefor could be discussed. One of the primary functions of this page is to make the relationship of individuals to the gens clearer. For this reason, even though the article on Boëthius is titled, "Boëthius", the piped link to that article in the list of members is "Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius".

This is also why it makes more sense for the links to "Boëthius (consul 522)" and "Symmachus (consul 522)" in the list of Anicii to be given as full nomenclatures, if the available scholarly materials provide this information. Both nomenclatures include the gentile name Anicius as well as pointing to relationships with Boëthius and the Aurelii Symmachi. Wikipedia's usual policy on the naming of articles suggests that "Boëthius (consul 522)" and "Symmachus (consul 522)" are acceptable article titles, even if both of them had longer names, which seems fairly certain given the time period and the families in question.

My suggestion would be to give those articles those titles, and begin them with a brief paragraph such as, "Boëthius, according to some sources Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius, was the son of the philosopher Boëthius, consul in A.D. 510. He and his brother, [[Symmachus (consul 522)|Symmachus]], were elevated to the consulship in A.D. 522." P Aculeius (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If the name is "Aurelius Anicius Symmachus", what's the point of having just Symmachus (consul 522)? And if the name is just Symmachus, what's the point of putting a speculative 19th century reconstruction in the Anicii page.

As for the proposed introduction, put the longer name in a footnote, clearly state that the sources are of the 19th century and that primary sources do not report them, and that's fine with me. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that life is short. Are we talking about the article's name, or a reference within an article? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)