Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 42

The founding of Rome article refers to "archaic Rome" a couple of times, is this archaic period identical to or considered different from the archaic Greek period, does it begin or end at different times in historians estimations? I feel like this would be good to have established. ★Trekker (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

When I think of archaic Rome, I tend to think of the period before the establishment of the republic (c. 505): On the whole, we tend to think of the Rome of the kings as archaic Rome, making some allowance for the fact that there is archaeological evidence for a settlement at Rome back at least as far as the tenth century BC.^[1] At the same time, there are some sources which says that it goes through at least to the Conflict of the Orders.^[2] Eg the phrasing the Conflict of the Orders in archaic Rome at Raaflaub ed (2005) p 5. The contents of the book to me, imply an end date basically coinciding with the Licinio-Sextian rogations (usually dated to 367). Ifly6 (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very common term—and while one might presume it refers to Rome under the kings, I think readers might be surprised to find it referring to events from 509 to 367 BC, which period is recorded in considerable detail from Livy and Dionysius, both of whom give yearly accounts of events, often with extensive narratives if battles or notable disputes occurred. It's true that some scholars (Forsythe in particular) tend to doubt that any of the narrative is reliable, but that's a separate issue; the characters and events of this period are much more familiar than the legendary chronicle of the kings, or the almost completely unknowable Rome of the archaeological period, i.e. whatever existed before the "founding" of the city by Romulus—or whoever was later remembered as Romulus, and whatever constituted the "founding" that most Roman scholars thought occurred in the eighth century BC. But in any case, the phrase "archaic Rome", since it's not that widespread or clear, is potentially confusing and best avoided unless the context is provided, and I would probably avoid using it for this later period. P Aculeius (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of the above, I'm very dissatisfied with this title for a fairly important topic in Roman history. I've laid out the reasons in brief at the article's talk page, but since only a fairly small number of us might take notice of the discussion without mentioning it here, I thought I'd ask for a broader sweep of opinions in the project. Am I the only one who dislikes the current title, and is there any hope of a consensus for one of the two alternatives I'm proposing? P Aculeius (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The page Constitutional reforms of Julius Caesar is something rather old created by RomanHistorian based almost entirely on Abbott A history and description of Roman political institutions (1901). I'm thinking of sending it to WP:PROD or WP:AFD but would like some feedback first. There are a number of issues with the page, foremost of which is that the idea that Julius Caesar had any constitutional reform programme is not widely held in scholarship. The material at the page in question is either wrong (appointment of consuls sans election; deposition of tribunes by assembly rather than by the senate) or otherwise already folded into the main article on Caesar (censorial powers; expansion of the senate; doubling of the "junior"-ish magistracies).

The core issue here is whether there were any constitutional reforms. It isn't sufficient to talk of reforms of all sorts. Moreover, given the difficulty of maintenance and the overlap with Caesar himself, an article on reforms generally largely duplicates the main article on Caesar.

There is a lot of scholarship on Caesar's plans. Here are a number of quotes on the matter:

• Morstein-Marx Julius Caesar (2021) p 602 [That the republic was] ready to collapse under the slightest pressure has been a reliable buttress for the idea that Caesar was able to see beyond [it] and envision an autocratic future for himself. Yet not only is this [Caesar's ability to see beyond the republic] an unnecessary conclusion from the evidence of Caesar's actions and decisions that we have reviewed, but the assumption of the Republic's frailty is itself doubtful.
• Steel End of the Roman republic (2013) p 205 To a certain extent, Caesar did begin to address the question of what a post-civil war res publica might look like in the second half of 46 and again after his return from Spain in the autumn of 45. But his measures are surprisingly poorly documented in contemporary sources: and since Cicero's correspondence from the period is fairly extensive, the argument from silence [ie Caesar wasn't doing much], despite his semi-retirement, has some validity.
• Badian sv "Iulius Caesar, C (2)" in OCD⁴ (2012): However, he had no plans for basic social and constitutional reform. The extraordinary honours heaped upon him by the Senate, nearly all of which he accepted, merely grafted him as an ill-fitting head on to the body of the traditional structure, creating an abyss between him and his fellow nobiles, whose co-operation he needed for the functioning and the survival of the system.
• Flower Roman republics (2010) p 163: We have plenty of evidence for Caesar's own views about contemporary events, but not much indication of his opinion of the past or of his proposed solutions for the future of Rome.
• Gardner in Companion to Julius Caesar (2009) p 65 [T]here is nothing to indicate that Caesar had formulated any definite plans either for his own future in the government of Rome, or for changes to the Republican constitution itself.
• Mackay Breakdown of the Roman republic (2009) p 305 Beginning at this point and continuing after his return from Spain, Caesar began to implement a number of new policies. It is sometimes claimed that Caesar had some sort of plan to reform the state, but while it does seem that he took the opportunity to introduce certain innovations, for the most part these take the form of actions that were forced upon him by immediate circumstances, and in any case no long-term principles are evident.
• Goldsworthy Julius Caesar (2006) p 471 Caesar had not fought the Civil War in order to reform the Republic, and in spite of what Cicero and others later claimed, there is no evidence that he had been aiming at supreme rule for much of his life. The later pages on reforms pp 478–81 touches almost nothing on constitutional issues (the topic of this article) but lots of administrative ones.
• Boatwright et al The Romans (2004) p 265 Even so, to him the Republic was dead, and he could see no secure alternative means of regulating the state's affairs for the future except through himself. His adoption of the title "perpetual dictator" during February 44 confirmed this conclusion. In any event, reform would now have to be put off until his return from the Parthian campaign to which he had long been committed. Reforms, obviously, cannot be done if they were put off until some time after the man died.
• Meier Julius Caesar (1995) p 6: ¶ Modern scholars... have sought to evade the fatal alternative by crediting Caesar with a superior statesmanly vision and a genuine cause, in order to be able to assume that he acted from higher motives: that he was standing up for Rome, Italy, and the peoples of the empire against a blinkered, self-seeking and superannuated Senate, or that he wished to create a just and effective system of government and fundamentally renew the structure of the Roman empire. ¶ If this was so, Caesar said nothing about it... and no other evidence can be cited in support of such a view. On the contrary, it is clear that no one knew anything of it. None of the groupings in the civil war was moved by any such objective considerations.
• Gruen LGRR (1995) p 504: Little profit accrues from speculating on Caesar's final aims; yet nothing in his securely attested reforms was inconsistent with a Republican system. The assassination of Caesar, in any case, wiped his unful­ filled plans off the slate.
• Scullard From Gracchi to Nero (2011, first published 1959) p 130 That Caesar’s mind must have been moving towards some form of monarchy as the only practical solution of the constitutional problem is probable enough. But an outraged group of nobles, many of whom honestly but blindly identi- fied the Republican government of their day with Liberty, prevented Caesar from revealing to the world the solution that he would have decided to apply to its ills. Viz if there were any reforms we don't know anything about it because they were never "reveal[ed] to the world".
• Syme Roman revolution (1939) p 55 As his acts and his writings reveal him, Caesar stands out as a realist and an opportunist. In the short time at his disposal he can hardly have made plans for a long future or laid the foundation of a consistent government.

The distinction is clearest in comparison with Sulla, whose constitutional reforms did in fact happen. Modern specialists credit Sulla with a programme to fundamentally reshape Roman government into one based on hard laws with courts to enforce them, backed by the authority of an enlarged senate. It didn't work, but it was a reform programme nonetheless. Eg Flower Roman republics (2010) p 117 An alternative to a crisis: Sulla's new republic (chapter heading).

What is most commonly identified with Caesar is an expansion of the senate, a doubling of a number of the magistracies, extensions of citizenship, a law relating to the term of promagistrates, and his own aggrandisement. Expanding the senate and doubling the magistracies is largely cosmetic and solves few problems. Meier 1995 p 464 such a large membership [in the senate] would certainly make the house incapable of functioning properly, but it enabled Caesar to show favour to many. Nor is extending citizenship "constitutional" when elections are meaningless. "Be in charge forever as long as possible" is no constitutional reform; even if it were, it is a visionless slogan, not an article.

The main alternative to deletion, I think, is doing something similar to my recent rewrite on Marian reforms: turn the article into a description of a historiographical debate. In essence, "19th-century-ers thought this was a thing; it wasn't; this is why". There is little basis for such a name and little basis for coverage inasmuch as it is unclear that such a constitutional reform programme (as opposed to band-aid reforms) was believed to have existed. Mommsen in his Roman re-enactment of 1848's Frankfurt never got around to even starting his fourth volume which would have told the story from Thapsus through to the empire. Ifly6 (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I am an art historian of 19th century French sculpture and am returning to my research after many years absence. I am currently looking at an image of Mars as a child, and found and read the Wiki pages on Mars and Maris. The figure of Maris seems of interest as a precedent, source, inspiration - at least in part - because he is, according to the Wiki page, usually represented as a child. Does anyone have any further information or sources on Mars as a child (not a baby or a young man, but a boy, aged about 10-14)? This could be image or text, please. My knowledge of classical imagery or texts is limited as is my personal library on the topic. I would be very grateful indeed for any pointers or references. It does strike me that this representation is quite rare in 19th century art and possibly in other time periods too. With my thanks and best wishes. Miss Myrtle (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any references to say that Mars was never or rarely depicted as a child in antiquity, but I contributed quite a lot of the material at Mars (mythology) and I don't recall this except in the possible (and only possible) connection with Etruscan Maris. However, many of the festivals and observances associated with Mars have to do with youth, particularly young men (age 14+) being initiated into adulthood and therefore preparing for war. And Mars does have some interesting associations with birth deities, though again, I can't think of times when he's portrayed as a child. In the Roman tradition, he is most often a middle-aged man with gravitas, often with a beard, or younger but still fully grown up when he's depicted in the Greek tradition of Ares. Some of the odder things about Mars in relation to youth and to birth deities can be found rather deep into the October Horse article. But off the top of my head, 10 to 14 seems not a common age for the depiction of deities; they're usually children who appear to be under 10, youths (such as the Greek ephebe), or at various stages of adulthood. (One strand in the iconography of Hercules is his frequent portrayal as a young child.) Cynwolfe (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it took me a while to find the button to reply! Thank you very much for replying so promptly. Yes, I had a feeling it was an unusual age to represent for a Greek or Roman deity in general and Mars especially because the main stories about him are associated with what seem to me like adult activities (or at least those a youth aged 14+ would be involved in). I'm going to try and find more on Maris for the child representation of a martial figure and keep looking for more images in general. At the moment, I think I'm going to be able to say that the artist took a rather pioneering approach by depicting a 'Mars enfant', both in terms of her contemporaries and classical tradition. I'll post more if I find anything and any hints as to where to look would be very very welcome. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Myrtle (talk • contribs) 18:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Maris (the Etruscan deity) is not associated with Mars (the Roman war god). OCD⁴ sv "religion, Etruscan": but Maris (a youthful male deity) was not a counterpart of Mars (as a war-god there appears Lar/Laran). Ifly6 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Checking Brill's New Pauly (sv "Laran") it also says to a large extent equivalent to Greek Ares and Roman Mars, not identical with Etruscan Maris. Our own article on Maris (mythology) is slightly less definitive, saying: Some scholars think he influenced Roman conceptions of the god Mars, but this is not universally held. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The phraseology at Maris (mythology) seems perhaps a bit too generous, given how OCD⁴ and Brill's NP are both relatively definitive that the identification (Mars = Maris) isn't the case. Ifly6 (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, everyone. I'm inclined to seek reference works on Classical art written or available in the late nineteenth century in France to see if there were texts that artists used as guidance but then may have diverged from and/or elaborated on. It does look like the piece of sculpture I am researching is not connected to Maris but rather a modified (ie 'Enfant') Mars, even if without much precedent in classical or contemporary art because it is a figure aged around 10-14 years old. She also did a Bellone Enfant a few years earlier and, this too, is quite an unusual representation because of the age (I think this one is a bit younger although I've only recently seen an image of it so still working on that interpretation). I'm regarding them as a pendant pair at the moment but the research is ongoing until my essay is due around mid-September. Again, thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.141.196 (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The Salonia gens article mentions a Salonia who was the mother of a Matidius (possibly identical with or the father of Gaius Salonius Matidius Patruinus), and I have come across further information which might shed more light on her full name and the name of her husband, these texts mention an inscription for a Salonia C. f. Modesta who was the wife of Quintus Matidius Q. f. Patruinus, but both texts I have found which discuss this are not in English, this one is in French while this one is in German, so I do not know if the texts support the idea that they are one and the same. ★Trekker (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to attract attention to the slow-moving discussion about the illustrations in Catullus 3 (see Talk:Catullus 3#Illustration): currently two videos are in the lead that replaced the original image of an old painting on the subject (cf. ). The discussion topic is broader that just this article, as other Catullus works are illustrated similarly (cf. Catullus 1, Catullus 2, Catullus 5). Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry seems to be inactive (no reaction in a month), so, before resorting to an RFC, trying to get some attention here. Thank you in advance! Викидим (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Catullus 3 § Illustration

There is a proposal at Talk:Dīs Pater#Requested move 30 July 2023 to move an article indicated to be of interest to this project, Dīs Pater to Dis Pater. NebY (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I found no link to this article at the Metis Disambiguation page.

Also, it is hard to access the article on Wiktionary. A link takes you to an article on a Canadian First Nation called Metis.

I do not have the wiki skills to resolve these issues.

Thanks.

Neelthakrebew (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The disambiguation page Metis lists and links Metis (mythology) under Other uses. The Wiktionary page has, beside the Greek mythology definition, a linking box stating that "English Wikipedia has an article on: Metis (mythology)" and also lists and links Metis (mythology) under See also. That seems satisfactory and proportionate. NebY (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Deity infoboxes have parameters for a deity's "equivalent" in another culture, but I'm not sure if there are formal criteria for what qualifies as an equivalent. Greek and Roman deities are especially going to have a lot of equivalents, thanks to interpretatio graeca. Has the Greece and Rome project ever established criteria for how these parameters should be used?

I ask because some editors tend to draw equivalencies on questionable grounds. If it were up to me, these parameters would only be used for equations that the cultures in question drew themselves, e.g., Ares with Mars, Osiris with Dionysus, or Belisama with Minerva. (I'd only make an exception for "Proto-Indo-European equivalent", which is a direct genetic relationship that can be demonstrated by etymology.) Other editors view it differently. I just removed the "Norse equivalent" of Tinia, on the grounds that the Etruscans and the Norse were never in direct contact and could not have equated their deities with each other. The article on Śuri has an entire section about his supposed equation with Surtr, but although the section has sources I can't check, it looks like those sources are simply descriptions of Surtr and the equation between the two deities is OR. A more borderline case is Vulcan (mythology), which says his Hindu equivalent is Agni. The sources for that claim look like they're noting similarities between Vulcan and Agni, but not actually claiming that the Romans or their contemporaries in India actually equated Vulcan with Agni.

How should these equations be handled? A. Parrot (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

In my experience this is a particularly bad infobox parameter for people filling it in because it's there rather than because it's true or useful. I would only want to see this used where high-quality sources say explicitly that the deities are or were seen as equivalent. Just saying that they are similar or have the same domains is not sufficient. I also wouldn't accept a source saying "X derives from Y" as meaning "X is equivalent to Y": to me these are entirely different claims. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with this. It's especially tempting to draw cross-cultural parallels based on etymology, but this is fraught with peril: etymologically Zeus and Tyr are equivalents, and perhaps in some ancient version of Germanic mythology the parallel was more obvious. But in the form of the myths we know—mostly through the Norse eddas, the attributes of Zeus/Jupiter are divided between Odin and Thor. I seem to recall a possible connection between an early version of Thor and a Roman god—or perhaps it was Etruscan Tinia—but I'm not sure that the worship of Odin is attested in Roman writings. And these are the only instances I'm aware of—I suppose perhaps Njord was probably worshipped in Roman times (I think I've seen his name as "Nerthus", although I'm not sure if Nerthus was regarded as male or female), but I don't know whether he was equated with Jupiter or Neptune (the obvious parallels) or any other gods. I suppose one might be tempted to equate Freya with Aphrodite or other goddesses, or Bragi with Dionysus—but in the absence of any actual equivalent drawn by the Romans themselves (and I'm sure there are none in the case of Bragi), that seems very improbable. So on the whole, I would be very cautious about using this parameter outside of what Greek and Roman writers themselves had to say—if an equivalent depends on a modern scholar's identification, the claim should at least be cited to a very clear explanation of it. P Aculeius (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It feels like the most reasonable thing would be to follow what the sources say. If they say that the gods are in fact equivalent (emphasis on "gods" and "equivalent") then it should be added. "Similarities" in areas of effect (Neptune and the god Pollygotacrackerex of storms on the alien planet Omicron Convenience IX) don't imply equivalence. Citing a source that says "Neptune is the god of storms" and "Pollygotacrackerex is the god of storms on Omicron Convenience IX" to mean Neptune and Pollygotacrackerex are equivalent violates WP:SYNTH and WP:TSI. Ifly6 (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I like interpretatio graeca#Cross-cultural equivalencies' rule, even though it's not followed strictly enough: These are not necessarily gods who share similar traits (as viewed by modern scholarship or readers, at least), and rarely do they share a common origin (for that, see comparative Indo-European pantheons); they are simply gods of various cultures whom the Greeks or Romans identified (either explicitly in surviving works, or as supported by the analyses of modern scholars) with their own gods and heroes. (my emphasis) Not even common PIE ancestry makes equivalence - there's so much mutation and cross-breeding - let alone lazy equivalences of both being sky-gods or storm-gods, tricksters, snakes, lords or ladies of death or the underworld, or any of the other aspects of existence we humans try to explain or like making stories about. Trying to draw such connections can destroy life and meaning (cf The Key to All Mythologies, Edward Casaubon]].

At the very least, we could at once persistently apply MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

• Is it in the body of the article, with WP:RS (modern, secondary, WP:SCHOLARSHIP-compliant) cited?
• Is it a key fact, and how? (How, for example, is a Norse/Roman correspondence "key" to either?) NebY (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No argument with any of these responses. I just wanted to make sure people felt similarly before doing some article cleanup. A. Parrot (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Apulu#apollo as roman equivalent

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

All content in an infobox needs to be discussed in the body of the article with unequivocal sourcing. In particular, for these god equivalences, I agree with Ifly6 that the sources need to say specifically that god A is equivalent with god B. It would not be enough, for example, to have one source say that A is equivalent to X and another say X is equivalent to B, for one of our articles to assert that A is equivalent to B. Such a synthesis would be WP:OR. Paul August ☎ 13:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. And it's policy. Haploidavey (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@A. Parrot, P Aculeius, Caeciliusinhorto, and Ifly6: I read all of your comments with interest, and your opinions seem valid, so I dare to add my point of view about this topic. Equivalents are supposed to be gods with much similar attributes or roles, and in 90% of cases no source is linked nor requested: e.g. Sethlans' equivalence to Ptah, Tinia's equivalence to Amun, and many others. But the case of Śuri and Surtr was different: two mighty chthonic/volcanic fire gods, with cognate names – Etruscan: 𐌉𐌛𐌖𐌑, romanized: Śuri, from Etruscan: 𐌛𐌖𐌑, romanized: Śur, lit. 'black'^{[1][2][3][4][5]} and Old Norse: Surtr, lit. 'black'^[6] – and similar roles among the deities, both somehow patrons of the sun yet seen as a counterpart of the sky deities (Tin and Odin, respectively). In line with the current use of the Equivalent section on other pages, why shouldn't we note it? Why shouldn't we call them equivalent? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Because that's not how Wikipedia works. It is Wikipedia policy that

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Saying two gods are equivalent based on unreliable sources which, if they support the claim at all, support the claim only obliquely is not a reliable source directly supporting the claim. Now it might actually be that these gods are in fact equivalent; I would just want to see a pin-point citation – viz not your 18-page range van der Meer [capitalisation recte] 2013, pp 323–41 but instead the specific page with the claim – to a reputable scholarly publication to that effect. Ifly6 (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You will never find anything like that about any deity. Interpretatio graeca and intepretatio romana are speculative methods, there's no precise science behind them, so contemporary scholar don't waste their time on speculative equivalences between gods. They can point the similarities, but no scholar will ever say "Odin is 100% equivalent to Zeus" (the Romans equated him to Mercury, for example). Ancient authors loved to do that, but modern ones usually don't. 100% of the equivalences listed on this wiki, for any deity, are not backed by any scholar if not obliquely, that is comparing academically the accepted names and attributes. 93.40.225.200 (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

If that is the case then the "equivalence" should not be listed because the claim is itself not reliably sourced to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Ifly6 (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone is going to argue about equivalence in the case of most Greek and Roman deities; for instance Zeus with Jupiter, since not only were they always equated by the Greeks and Romans, but they fulfilled the same roles in both mythologies, and both derive from the same Indo-European concept of the sky-father, which is the source for both names.

Where this grows more fraught is when drawing equivalents with other mythologies that arose in different regions and at different time periods. While the Greeks and Romans liked to equate their gods to those of Israel, the Phoenicians, Persians, and Egyptians, in most cases—except when a god of eastern origin was imported to the classical world and its pantheon—they arose out of different traditions and their similarities were usually superficial.

It's very tempting to draw equivalents to Norse mythology, in part because it's well-known and familiar, and many Norse gods have characteristics similar to those of the Greeks and Romans. But in most cases we do not know of any common origins—the only exception I'm aware of is that Tyr's name points to his being the ancient Germanic version of the sky-father. But we don't really know how he was regarded centuries before the Romans encountered the Germans and equated him with Mars. We barely know him from Norse mythology, which agrees to some extent with Mars, not Jupiter.

As king of the gods, Odin functions in much the same way as Zeus or Jupiter, but the Romans seem to have equated him with Mercury, and regarded Thor as the equivalent of Zeus and Jupiter. As the god of thunder, the parallel is obvious; but he was not head of the Norse pantheon—at least not in historic times. And while Freya obviously has parallels to Venus, her role in Norse myth does not otherwise resemble the mythology of Venus or Aphrodite.

With the exception of Tyr—and possibly Thor—it's not really clear that any of the Norse gods share a common origin with those of the classical world. It's certainly not impossible, but we know too little about their early worship and legends to be sure, and unless a reliable source makes a credible identification along the lines above—not merely a passing mention, IMO—it probably doesn't belong in an infobox. P Aculeius (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

May I betray my ignorance by asking if you recall what Roman sources there are on Norse religion, particularly any identifying specific Norse gods such as Odin or Thor? Part of the problem seems to be that ancient writers tell us which Greek or Roman gods the foreigners worship (Tacitus that Germans worship Mercury, Hercules, Mars and Isis; Megasthenes that Indians worship Heracles and Dionysus; Strabo that they worship Zeus) without giving us foreign names or identifying features, a terrible temptation for future scholars. Tacitus does give us "Alci" for Castor and Pollux, are there others? NebY (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't recall! I wasn't expecting to contribute to Wikipedia on the subject, but I thought it very interesting when I read about this years ago. I can verify they were in scholarly sources, but I can't recall whether it was in an encyclopedia, or a book about specific mythologies, or some notes to Roman writers. At the very least I can say that I didn't pick it up on some web site—I don't visit web sites about mythology, as a rule! If I have a free moment I might check a few printed sources from my library that come to mind and see if any of them have a clear discussion of the topic, or any of the elements.

The days of the week are a good mnemonic device, though: the relevant Roman and Norse equivalents here of course are Tuesday (Mars, Tyr), Wednesday (Mercury, Odin), Thursday (Jupiter, Thor), and Friday (Venus, Freya). Obviously Saturday still refers to Saturn, and the sun and moon were only vaguely personified in Roman myth, and barely in Norse.

I suspect that the common origin of the names of Zeus, Jupiter, and Tyr might have come from my copy of the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd Edition. Other information might be from the Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, section on Norse. I also have a very scholarly treatment of Norse myths in general, but I don't remember it mentioning Roman myth at all. P Aculeius (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Tacitus' Germania seems to be the main source. Germanic paganism references Ebenbauer, Alfred (1984). "Germanische Religion". Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Vol. 12. de Gruyter, which is accessible through de Gruyter in the Wikipedia Library by searching for Germanische Religion. You can then translate through Google translate or similar if necessary. TSventon (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, both. That "the Romans seem to have equated [Odin] with Mercury, and regarded Thor as the equivalent of Zeus and Jupiter" had me excited for a moment! NebY (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ifly6: You're right – but, unfortunately, that's how he's credited on academia.edu, the capitalisation is not mine. I'll give an additional check to the bibliography. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Academia.edu is like Google Books in this. Both sites are indispensable for the publications they give access to, especially when they are peer-reviewed and from reputable publishers, but they don't check this and nobody vets the names, titles, dates etc. that appear in their descriptions. Caveat citator :) Andrew Dalby 08:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

In the context of a third opinion in this discussion about the best title for an article about a Roman ship, Mathnerd314159 made the observation that we don't currently have an article on the topic Ships of the Roman Empire. (We do have Category:Ancient Roman ships.) An article with this title would provide a home for some topics not notable enough in their own right for a standalone page, like navis pescatoria, but worth a mention in an article about a broader topic. It would also be a place to summarize other ships that are notable and do have articles, like navis lusoria, or nemi ships. I'll just note some names listed in Ematinger-2015 which probably aren't notable enough for an article, but which could be mentioned in the proposed article: navis aperta, moneris, navis longa, navis tecta, navis strata, navis constrata, or liburna. An easier road to mainspace might be to call it List of ships of the Roman Empire, at least initially, but we really ought to have an article with the proposed title, as it is easily notable and could go into more detail about the history. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Surprised that article doesn't exist. If any editor working on the topicneeds help accessing academic or paywalled sources let me know and I'll try to help. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 19:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ixtal: me, too. I'm not going to go any further with this, but to ease the entry burden, here is Draft:Ships of the Roman Empire. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This topic has now been released as the article Ships of ancient Rome. Several sections need work, and the lead is only a single sentence and needs expansion. Your help is appreciated! Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay, Mathglot, I've been dealing with a family situation for the past few weeks. I can't seem to find the section in RX where you crossposted. Are there any sources you'd still like for me to get for you? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response; not needed now; cheers! Mathglot (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually mostly in favor of moving all the "X gens" pages to "gens X" (since that's the form all of the pages actually use in their running text) or to the masculine forms of each nomen (since that's the form these are always actually encountered in).

Assuming we aren't reformatting all those pages, though, then this mistaken fork needs to be corrected by creating separate stubs for each person or moving the content back to the gens's page, if one of y'all have the time to help out by doing so. — LlywelynII 13:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to go for a hard no on moving any gens pages to the masculine nomen, I don't see any good reason to do that. I 100% think we should have a standardized way we do gens articles, for me it doesn't really matter if its "Gens __", "__ gens" or "__ (gens)" tho.★Trekker (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with StarTrekker that we shouldn't move to the masculine nomina. I would prefer gens Xia if only because that's more common in modern works – I think the only source I've seen putting it backwards is DGRBM which probably did so largely for alphabetisation reasons – but I defer to the status quo. Ifly6 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• A full set of redirects from "Gens ___" to "___ gens" might make searching and linking easier for readers and editors, but it turns out we have very few "Gens ___" redirects: 6 Gens C___ for 73 C___ gens members of Category:Roman gentes (among them Curzio), 4 Gens F___ for 21; 4 of 61 for P___, and so on. Should we have redirects for the rest? NebY (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The Curzio page was super weird and seemed to not make any sense so I reverted it back to a version that was only about the modern name.★Trekker (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That's better! NebY (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose on all parts of the misnamed proposal. Roman gentes are grammatically feminine and take the feminine form in all scholarly literature and reference sources. Nomina are certainly and frequently encountered in the feminine—all Roman women have feminine nomina!

As for the order—when this project was started, I was accustomed to encountering them as "gens X" in references; but the title format adopted was "X (gens)" using the nomen and a parenthetical disambiguator. Having a thousand articles beginning with "gens" makes the search window's suggestion feature useless, and seems less intuitive. And when endless arguments over which ones didn't need a disambiguator at all—resulting in a hodgepodge of formats with some articles being moved back and forth repeatedly—resulted in the decision to rely on natural disambiguation, "X gens" seemed just as natural, and common in the literature on the topic, and I came to regard "gens X" as a bit fussy, which is why although I left it in the lead of each article as technically correct, I chose the simpler title format, since it was A) consistent with the existing structure of the entire project, B) easier and more intuitive to search by the name than by a disambiguating word, and C) sounded less affected. To be clear: both orders are correct and used—but one makes a better title for the reasons I just mentioned.

The fact that very few redirects exist suggests that people aren't searching for them, or aren't having any trouble reaching the right articles. Mostly they are artifacts of articles originally created at the wrong titles, or perhaps for some of the most common ones. It is certainly not worth creating them, although at one time I created redirects from the bare nomina in both their masculine and feminine forms as well as the masculine plural. This could still be done, but in many instances it turns out that biologists have been trawling lists of Roman nomina in order to name countless genera of fish, spiders, and plants, frequently resulting in the redirects vanishing or being turned into articles on obscure taxonomic designations.

The "Curzio" page is an example of what happens when an editor who doesn't believe in sharp distinctions between Roman history and modern Italian society goes around routinely conflating them—it looks bizarre because it's a chimera, and should never have been edited in the way that it was—so my thanks go to StarTrekker for reverting that.

As for the ostensible topic here, what "Cispius" is is an example of something we used to have a lot of on Wikipedia, dating back to before there were more than a handful of brief and wildly inconsistent articles on Roman gentes. It's a "prosopography page", in which brief biographies of homonymous and usually related Romans that otherwise would be stubs or very short articles are combined. It was probably felt that this was a better way to treat multiple persons with very similar names—often, though not always, the same tria nomina, who might easily be confused. These entries are typically longer than allowed for entries on the gens pages, and they allow for expansion. At the same time there are also many fewer entries, and they include only those persons likely to be confused with one another.

They're a sort of hybrid between biographies and disambiguation pages, and they're certainly allowed, and useful IMO. However, their numbers have been whittled down over the years for a variety of reasons: first, the editors who used to create them are less active and/or now tend to create stubs or individual articles for anyone about whom too much is known to fit in an entry in the gens articles (usually three lines is the most anyone gets there, and ironically the most important people usually have shorter entries, since they can be summarized more easily and link to individual articles where much more detail can be included).

Secondly, as individual biographies are expanded, they're often split off into separate articles. Most entries are about a paragraph, sometimes two or three, but once they get that large they begin to look viable as stand-alone articles, and editors split them off to expand or at least polish separately. Note that this is because prosopography pages are designed to allow a longer and more detailed narrative than entries on gens pages, which are usually written sparingly in order to avoid becoming lengthy; typically one or two sentences, rather than whole paragraphs.

Thirdly, we had one or two editors a few years ago who decided to convert a number of prosopography pages into plain disambiguation pages by moving all of the contents into other articles. You can see how some of these pages used to look, and perhaps why they were useful, if you look at "Sextus Julius Caesar" or "Lucius Julius Caesar". I think this did a disservice to readers, but it's done and it wasn't worth going to war over. I don't see any point in splitting these up—they cover a gap between the brief entries on a gens page and full-fledged articles, and serve the purpose of distinguishing similarly-named Romans who might easily be confused, without burdening them with general information about the gens or a long list of numerous other members who can easily be distinguished by their differing nomenclature. P Aculeius (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

My only issue with the set index/prosopography pages are that it can result in issues over at Wikidata.★Trekker (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

After being a stub for well over a decade, I managed to find some sources and additional annotations that I extracted from Italian Wikipedia to upgrade, upsize, and touch up the article. In addition to that, I built up a new template for the Museo Nazionale Romano based upon the National Archaeological Museum, Athens template to consolidate the compiled articles. First time taking on a Stub article for an otherwise artifact with many pop culture references over the century, hope it can get an upgrade. NeverBeGameOver (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Tholos_(Ancient_Rome)#Merge_to_Tholos_(architecture). The text and references are (or were) all also there. The first para is largely wrong anyway. If no-one objects there, I will merge them in a few days. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (triumvir)#Requested move 3 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear team. I hope you’re all well. This is to request the attention of Classicists and editors interested in archaeology to help a baby sister project aimed at improving the coverage and articles related to Canaan/Phoenicia. My colleague and I nominated Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II for FA status. The article discusses a significant archaeological artifact and inscriptions. Your input would be greatly appreciated. el.ziade (talkallam) 22:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Sadly I know very little of the topic but I wish you good luck!★Trekker (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

This article, of interest to members of this project, is up for deletion as a likely hoax. Views on this welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philodoppides Mccapra (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it known why the form "Caracalla" (used in the 4th-century Epitome de Caesaribus) became popular over "Caracallus" (used by contemporary Dio and in the 4th-century Historia Augusta)? ★Trekker (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Not going off any explicit statement here—I was going to suggest that the name simply followed a pattern of elaborative cognomina taking on a first-declension ending although the roots might be second-declension or third-declension masculine (i.e. nasus giving us the masculine Naso but the derivative Nasica rather than the equally plausible Nasicus, all masculine in use, but the former first-declension)—but then I checked to see if by any chance our use in English is idiosyncratic (apparently not, he's "Caracalla" in German and Spanish Wikipedia, and the German one doesn't even mention "Caracallus"), and then peeked at the DGRBM entry on him to see what it might say, and I think that may supply the answer:

Caracalla or Caracallus, which never appears on medals or inscriptions, was a nickname derived from a long tunic or great coat with a hood, worn by the Gauls, which he adopted as his favourite dress after he became emperor, and introduced into the army. These vestments found great favour, especially among the lower orders, and were known as Antoninianae Caracallae.

So here we find that the garment's name was caracalla, first-declension. Grammatically it would be normal to form a second-declension surname from it, hence Caracallus in Cassius Dio and the Historia Augusta, but if simply referring to the cloak itself, one would call it a caracalla, and perhaps use that as a nickname. Both of these processes seem consistent with typical cognomina from earlier periods of Roman history—there was never a strict rule about how cognomina had to be formed from other words or names, resulting in many variations based on different roots, i.e. Silus/Silo, Denter/Dentio, Barba/Barbatus. First-declension cognomina derived from second-declension words were not rare: Nerva from nervus, Casca from cascus.

So both Caracallus and Caracalla were possible forms of a surname, but my guess is that Cassius Dio, as an educated man, rendered it as he expected it to appear grammatically, while Caracalla eventually prevailed because it shared the same declension as the name of the garment itself. It's also conceivable that using the first-declension form made the name sound "feminine", and that this was a rhetorical device for diminishing Caracalla's legacy, but that's just speculation on my part—the simpler explanation is just that the cloak being a caracalla, rather than a caracallus, and the second-declension form not being generally used as a surname by anyone else of note, influenced general usage over time. P Aculeius (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a striking similarity to Caligula, but I wonder if I'm betraying my superficiality and such nicknames were common in the military. NebY (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right. Caliga is a first-declension noun, and caligula is the literal diminutive. A man wearing caligae would be described as caligatus, which could become a surname—but here Caligula could be interpreted not as "little booted fellow" but as "little boot", hence keeping the first declension. P Aculeius (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I too have found it an interesting parallel.★Trekker (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting Aculeius! I too have wondered about the feminizing aspect of it, but your take that the 'a' form prevailed because of it being the literal name of the garment seems probable.★Trekker (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

G'day -- I'm working on a new article and it was suggested I post here. I've written a skeleton which I hope gives insight into the direction of my research.

I'm looking for modern scholars that I can look into for perspective in addition to what I've identified. Especially 21st century scholars and that reflect new consensus.

Issues so far:

• The differing views on when Ancient Rome, the Roman Empire or Byzantine end/start (and terminologies)
• Differing views on the term Rome as a state. (For example, Mary Beard in SPQR calls up until 1453 Rome but I'm not sure how commonplace that is.)
• The title and scope itself. (Many thanks to @NebY and @Cynwolfe for making me realise "Modern historiography of Rome" was not a good scope or title.)

Biz (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Great idea, I really think its something that's missing right now.★Trekker (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The article may well fill a gap, but the current start will need a lot of added expertise. This comes out of recent lengthy discussions at Talk:Ancient_Rome#Nomenclature and elsewhere. The concentration on Gibbon (as villain) and Beard (as heroine) will be familiar to those who have followed Biz's comments there. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I started and DYK'd the article Lustrum (journal) about the classics review journal, but I am looking for some outside perspective when it comes to this journal's notability and this article's use of citations. This article is not (yet?) AfD'd but any classicists' advice on what might improve this article or thoughts on notability is welcome in on its talk page: Talk:Lustrum (journal). Thank you very much for your time and any feedback which might help remove the "cleanup" tag! Umimmak (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone help me out with a second edition (pdf) of:

Caligula The Corruption of Power By Anthony A. Barrett, 1989

I already have a pdf of the first edition but apparently much of it has been substantially revised, updated and corrected since then. Haploidavey (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Amazing people! Duly sent and received with thanks, User:T8612. Haploidavey (talk)

Is it desirable to describe Augustus' predecessor as "Position established" or similar (eg "reign established"), or Constantine XI Palaiologos' successor as "position abolished" or similar (eg "reign abolished"). There's been some back-and forth editing of infobox fields there and at Romulus Augustulus and Julius Nepos, without any talk page discussion. Maybe discussion here instead would better establish consensus. Pinging Sleyece, Tintero21, NormalRichard. NebY (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I would not include "position established" for Augustus. There's a somewhat lively scholarly debate on the topic which focuses on continuities and places the formation of such an office later. Eg A E Cooley, "From the Augustan principate to the invention of the age of Augustus", JRS 109 (2019) pp 71–87; Drinkwater "The principate – lifebelt or millstone around the neck of the empire?" in Crises and the Roman empire (Brill, 2007) pp 67f. We make Augustus the first emperor for teleological reasons and not because he would have necessarily been seen in his time as having created such an office. Ifly6 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a "position abolished" (or similar) would fit Constantine XI either, since there was no official "abolition" of the office like, let's say, France. It just takes space. Tintero21 (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen anything similar to "reign established / abolished" in literature, monarchs' infoboxes almost always say something like "monarchy" or "state abolished". Tintero21 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

These seem like strange and unusual ways to describe events—a formality that nobody had thought of at the time, for which there is no evidence of deliberate intention, and which took no distinct form separate from the events that established/disestablished them. This isn't how these are usually described, so I don't think Wikipedia is the right place to do it now. P Aculeius (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not married to my system of "reign abolished" or whatever, but I think for the continuance of the reign from Constantine XI back to Augustus, that "position abolished" is not really Encyclopedic enough. I also think the current standard where there is just nothing on Augustus and CXI to indicate the start and end of such an endearing reign of royalty is not very Encyclopedic. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not usual to speak of a reign as continuing in that manner; instead, recently, Queen Elizabeth II's reign ended when she died and Charles III's reign began. It is also arguable to what extent there was continuity between Augustus and Constantine XI, so tendentious to modify the use of infobox parameters to express one. As for whether it's encyclopedic to not make such a statement in an infobox, not only is it entirely appropriate and a sufficient statement to simply leave predecessor and successor unstated if there wasn't one, per Wittgenstein, but also infoboxes themselves are not encyclopedic (cf the Encyclopédie, the Encyclopædia Britannica, Chambers's Encyclopaedia, etc). NebY (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

What function did tribes who were not part of the 35 Roman voting tribes have in the Roman Empire? This topic was mentioned at the talk page of Atia, mother of Augustus. The Atia tribe was seemingly one of many named (and created?) in honor of members of Augustus family, so what purpose did they have in places like Corinth? ★Trekker (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard of a tribus Atia before; as far as I recall, the articles on Roman tribes in classical encyclopedias don't mention the creation of any others once the number thirty-five had been reached under the Republic. Is there a source that specifically says that others were established? The Atia gens was certainly Roman, so it seems improbable that a voting tribe named after them would be Greek. It could be that the word tribus is used in its generic sense to describe a homonymous group in Greece, without having the technical meaning assigned to the word at Rome.

If, as the discussion at Atia (mother of Augustus) suggests—if I'm not misreading it—the basis for such a tribe is purely epigraphic, how clear is the epigraphic evidence? Even inscriptions that include voting tribes don't usually state that they're tribus (note, 4th declension feminine, so nominative singular and plural are both tribus), so it would be unusual to see the word used in its legal sense in epigraphy, although it might occur in a longer inscription. It could have been used thusly by mistake, or metaphorically speaking, so if it occurs only in epigraphy, there had better be a fair number of independent examples. Could you elaborate on the case for a tribus Atia? P Aculeius (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Similar tribes have been mentioned in StarTrekker's edits for Publius Vatinius (see discussion) and Agrippa. Taking ST at good faith I wouldn't dismiss them as fictitious or misunderstandings. I think it's more likely they refer to phylai^[1] given the example of Hadrianus at Athens. This somewhat older PDF discusses on page 23 some ten Corinthian tribes (among them Atia, Agrippia, Livia, and Vatinia) which operated within the municipal government much in the same way colonies or states many times model their constitutions on the metropole's (eg US states implementing US-style presidential government; former British colonies adopting Westminster style parliaments).^[2] As a separate note I think this rather neat that this mini-Roman republic continued functioning until the fourth century. I wouldn't, however, think them to be Roman tribes. Ifly6 (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, though as Corinth was a newly-minted Roman colony (est 44 BC), I would imagine they set up their own tribus system rather than recreating old Corinthian phylai and adding to them. NebY (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense: they're local tribes, an entirely different political structure, like the local senates or magistrates in places other than Rome. Although if the inhabitants were Roman citizens, wouldn't they still have been enrolled in one of the thirty-five tribes? Or was that system not extended to colonia at this period of time? P Aculeius (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Re NebY, I don't mean to say they are identical to the phylai just that they serve a similar role. Re Aculeius, by the imperial period one could have multiple citizenship (eg Paul); in Cicero's day, Italian towns did not recognise multiple citizenships but Greek or Hellenistic towns did.^[3] Presumably a Roman citizen was still enrolled in tribes but by the imperial period they had lost their political relevance anyway. Regardless, re the tribes Atia, Agrippia, Livia, and Vatinia, I think if we talk about them they should (I would go so far as "must") have jurisdictional disambiguation (eg tribe of Corinth or municipality XYZ) because they are so obscure. Ifly6 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This is wonderfully informative, thank you all so much.★Trekker (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been working on galley on and off for over ten years and finally decided it was time to go for a barnstar. Assessments and input would be greatly appreciated. Here is the FAC page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galley/archive1 Peter ^Isotalo 13:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

We have been allegedly (perhaps supposedly and putatively) collaborating on the Theatre of Pompey article for almost a decade now. That article has been substantively transformed since 2013. Does the community want to collaborate on something else? Ifly6 (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I think its time to move on yes 😅★Trekker (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey all,

It appears that @Wakantanka:, who claims in this this diff to be Barry Powell, may have edited a great number of articles relating to the field they work in with the goal of self-promotion of their own work in violation of WP:NPOV. While I believe that their views on the origin of the Ancient Greek alphabet non-controversially constitute WP:FRINGE and have removed them, I don't feel as confident about assessing the status of their other contributions, and am requesting that someone else take a look at their edits to determine if any of their other contributions violate WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE and should be removed/reverted as well. - car chasm (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Carchasm: If he researched at Berkeley and Harvard, his books are published by Oxford, Cambridge and California university presses and he's retired as professor at Wisconsin -- and he was joint editor of the New Companion to Homer published by Brill in 1997 -- and his views in this very area of research are described on Wikipedia as "FRINGE", he can be proud of the distinction, I think :) In the general area of the writing down of the Homeric epics and the origins of the Greek alphabet I'm not sure if there is really a mainstream; if there is, it's quite vaguely defined, and I think Powell's in it.

Adding an afterthought on that: it's interesting to read this positive review of his challenging book Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet (1991) by Mabel Lang.

The COI issue was raised at Talk:Barry B. Powell, @Wakantanka: replied briefly there, and I'll add a comment there. Andrew Dalby 14:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Carchasm: What is the evidence that Powell's views on the origin of the Ancient Greek alphabet non-controversially constitute WP:FRINGE? Paul August ☎ 14:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Well I raised the issue here because I though that some alleged subject-matter experts might weigh in, but it looks like that was an error on my part. No, the idea that the Greek alphabet was invented solely to write down the Homeric epics is preposterous, we have inscriptions (such as the Dipylon inscription) prior to the composition of the Homeric poems, and Powell's so-called theories further require rejecting the idea that the Greek alphabet is derived from other alphabets. If you look at his edit history he also seems to have a penchant for removing any references to abjad languages. - car chasm (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

"Preposterous" is overstated. It depends partly on when one thinks the epics were first written down.

My impression is that he hasn't taken against the languages, he thinks the neologism "abjad" unhelpful. It is perhaps commoner on Wikipedia than in the real world? But correct me if I'm mistaken. Andrew Dalby 19:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that the prevalence of "abjad" online is very much a "Wikipedia effect" kind of thing. I can't speak to whether the term is much used by writing specialists, but I had never encountered it before I came here, even when I briefly learned some Hebrew.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aita (disambiguation)#undefined that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

In April this year User:ColinSchm, who does not normally edit on classical subjects, took it upon himself to split off the book from the author without any discussion, using as edit summary "per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_notable_books/3 based on Pausanias (geographer) + re-write, infobox, etc".

I rather think this was a mistake, as we know nothing about P except what he tells us in the book, which isn't much. What do people think about merging them back together? Both articles seem of pretty low quality to me. The biography gets 5-7 times more views btw. It would be great if someone who knows the area better than I do would improve them/it. Also the title(s) - "geographer" is a tad misleading, and Peter Levy's Guide to Greece might be better. I'll copy this to Talk:Pausanias (geographer); please comment there. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that they are better off as a single article. The sections in Pausanias (geographer) on writing style and modern views are all really about the Description of Greece, and should be covered in that article. The fact that we don't currently say that archaeologists have found the book to be largely accurate in the article on the book seems like a major omission! And once we have brought that back over, there's little point in keeping what remains separate – especially as even the Biography section contains information on the book which isn't currently in that article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm relatively new to doing large edits (read: this is my second) so I was hoping someone wouldn't mind popping over to Battle of Cynoscephalae to check and make sure everything's ok. I initially found the page when I was doing RC patrol and was just going to look for citations for everything due to the distinct lack of them (and the request for them that hasn't been touched since 2015) but I ended up being a 2 day long restructure of pretty much the entire thing so it'd be good to get a fresh pair of eyes on it. CommissarDoggo (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Your help may be needed on Talk:Lucretius, regarding part of the article that may be falsified information. Renerpho (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Byzantine Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Sisyphus—is discussing whether to retain its "In Popular Culture" section or not. If you are interested, please participate in the discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The article for the father of empress Julia Cornelia Paula is called Julius Paulus Prudentissimus but from the way the article is written it doesn't seem to me like "prudentissimus" was a name, just something he was described as. Should it be moved? ★Trekker (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it. The article was moved without discussion in March, 2009, apparently because the original title was a poor choice. However, you appear to be correct—"prudentissimus" may be a memorable description, but it's not what he's usually called, and he's not that likely to be confused with another Julius Paulus—that title redirects to him. So I'd move it there. I don't think an extended discussion is warranted—you could go ahead and do it, although if you want to wait and see what other people here say, that'd be okay too. Or if you need admin help to move it over the redirect, obviously. P Aculeius (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems I indeed need help to move it over the redirect.★Trekker (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that this is a malformed disambiguation and the undisambiguated form redirects there, I think that you can probably make a technical request to move the page Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I have done so now, thank you for the recomendation.★Trekker (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Attalus I/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Greek god names 139.216.63.3 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

What about them?★Trekker (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

A year ago the article Moesi has been completely changed in favor of one theory arguing that this ancient people (mentioned by multiple Greek and Latin sources) never actually existed and it's the product of Roman propaganda. To me it's obviously a very radical and fringe line of thought to have, I hope more people active in ancient history (★Trekker, User:Furius, P Aculeius etc.) can look into this. See the talk page there. Barjimoa (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have missed this completely for some reason. I'll look into it in the next few days. My first impression is that an awful lot of the article as it now stands seems to be based on a small number of extremely recent sources, possibly with a nationalist agenda. But I need to compare that with what the previous version and older scholarship said. P Aculeius (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I recently created an article for a WikiEdu class and made some mistakes when I was moving it, tried to fix it and made a bigger mistake. Our class Wiki liaison recommended I come to a Wiki projects board to see if someone would be willing to help sort this out. I addressed as many of the problems I know of and I believe it might qualify to have some of the tags removed. Any help reviewing my page and leaving me messages on my talk page would be appreciated. I just want to have a quality page.

thank you for any help/recommendations WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Swaddled infant votive

Hi all,

So I'm reading sources that refer to the Huns conquering "Valeria" as a province next to Pannonia on the Middle Danube. However, if I search Valeria, for the Roman province I get "a late Roman province in Suburbicaria". And Suburbicaria then links to Italia suburbicaria, which is in southern Italy and thus definitely not where the Valeria I'm reading about was located. Can anyone untangle this particular web?

Thanks!--15:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Ermenrich (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a stub article at Pannonia Valeria. TSventon (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I have adjusted the wording of Huns to distinguish between Pannonia Valeria and the other provinces of Pannonia mentioned on p 173 of Kulcsár and Istvánovits. TSventon (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!--Ermenrich (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I've posted a new page move discussion at Talk:Ab urbe condita (Livy) following new input from another editor. I tried to initiate a similar discussion a few years ago, but it didn't go anywhere. It's been a while since the last full discussion. Maybe we can achieve a new consensus. P Aculeius (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Roman Empire has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it common to refer to figures of the Roman Republic as Roman Republican consuls, generals or whatever? It seems odd to me and I'm wondering whether to propose renaming of recently created categories such as Category:Roman Republican generals, Category:Roman Republican soldiers and Category:Roman Republican rebels to match the existing Category:Senators of the Roman Republic‎, but maybe I'm reading the wrong sources. We do seem to have had eg Category:Roman Republican praetors and Category:Roman Republican consuls for a long time. NebY (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that the creators, or whoever started the trend, just preferred "Roman Republican foo" to the longer "foo of the Roman Republic", perhaps because it's shorter, or because it leads with "Roman" rather than "foo", or because they were split from previous "Roman foo", which would have sounded right, but not been adequate for eras. I don't care for it either, but "foo of the Roman Republic" might have a disadvantage for searching. That said, redirects could probably be used to fix that. Might be something this WikiProject wants to do consistently across categories. P Aculeius (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really care too much about the whole categories project but it does seem as if we should pick one or other other. And if we have to pick, I would pick big endian such that we would get Roman republican generals rather than some kind of mixed order Generals of the Roman republic. Ifly6 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both, especially for the points about searching. I never imagined we could have redirected categories, but then again I was happier ignoring category changes on my watchlist anyway; I'll settle for still feeling slightly queasy about describing Julius Caesar as a Roman Republican anything. NebY (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Re WP:SELFPUB. Is Livius.org self-published? Ifly6 (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but it looks vaguely like it might be an endeavour similar to Wikipedia. I wouldn't cite it, and if I ran across a cite to it, I'd look for a replacement. I suspect it's as accurate as its authors can make it, but it doesn't look like a scholarly source, and our readers shouldn't have to rely on its authority. P Aculeius (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It's self published. See Jona Lendering, and the article talk page. The same question was raised here (possibly at G&R talk) several years back and IIRC, it generated a little heat. Lendering has his own convictions and isn't quite mainstream but has supporters out there; I'd steer clear. A quick PS for any interested parties: some content on the popular Ancient History Encyclopedia site is drawn from Livius.org Haploidavey (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 83#Jona Lendering, which seems to have concluded that Lendering is an expert and the site is usable within the constraints of WP:SPS (though that was back in 2010, when Wikipedia was less rigorous about sourcing!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The link there to Lendering's explanation for not citing modern sources no longer works; it's archived here. Given how much modern work has been done on assessing the scanty scattered evidence on, say, helots (work which I'm not qualified to assess), I find it hard to see his article Helot as a reliable source when it does not itself refer to any sources, ancient or modern. His practice may have changed a little; Ephor mentions one modern work at the end, while citing ancient sources for particular statements. NebY (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have tried not to state my own opinion on the site but I think it should not be used as a reliable source except in extremis since it is self-published. And, given the extent of Lendering's beating on certain other matters – his BMCR review of a book on Persia was sufficiently bad to be team-demolished – we should be wary of citations to him generally. Ifly6 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"As could be expected, the use of information from the web leads to errors." Lendering himself, in that review, complaining about the author's use of Livius.org as a source. NebY (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally I see no real reason to use Livius.org over some actual research, there is almost certainly better sources avalable for pretty much anything.★Trekker (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@StarTrekker, NebY, Caeciliusinhorto, Haploidavey, and LlywelynII: If that is the consensus on this matter should we remove citations or external links to Livius.org in articles, or drafts thereof, such as Founding of Rome and User:Ifly6/Varronian chronology? There is also the matter of the translation of Livy's Periochae which has been cited (eg Social War (91–87 BC)) to Livius.org's version since there does not appear to be a complete English version thereof elsewhere. Ifly6 (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

We seem to refer to Livius.org in a little over 850 articles. I fear a major purge would eventually suffer WP:LOCALCONSENSUS complaints unless there was prior consensus at WP:RSN. NebY (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's a major enough issue to systematically seek out and remove them, but if you come across them naturally it's probably worth looking to see if a better source is available. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a major purge would likely be too much. As content is rewritten, however, it feels as though the general feeling of people here is that Livius.org should not be used – given other reliable sources at all exist – going forward. Ifly6 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, as one of the main authors of the pages noted in my comment above, should I remove them myself? Ifly6 (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Good sensible thoughts and answers above; we don't need to frighten the horses with a purge, but if an editor has reasons for removal of a particular source, they should remove it, with an explanatory edit summary, and (hopefully) replace it with a better source that passes muster. I've done that in the past with otherwise reliable sources that have published blatant errors or omissions due to a lack of specialist knowledge. PS: the reliable sources noticeboard has the facility for commentary on named sources, not just an all or nothing yes/no. Haploidavey (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Coming to this late, but in case it's any help: on la:wiki I'm happy enough to cite livius.org under "external links", as offering an informed viewpoint (I think en:wiki makes less use of an "external links" section), but I wouldn't use livius.org as a source or cite it in footnotes. To judge by NebY's anecdote above, Lendering himself would agree. Good reasons have been given by others here, that it's self-published, not usually cited by scholars, and rarely cites its own secondary sources. So on en:wiki I'd say yes, replace citations of livius.org with better sources. Andrew Dalby 09:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the above comments Haploidavey and Andrew Dalby; I think I will remove citations to Lendering when I am otherwise editing and generally place Livius.org in external links if relevant (except for the Periochae translation which seems okay enough). Ifly6 (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Like Andrew, I've only just now noticed this discussion, and I agree that we should not be using Livius as a source, and trying to replace them as we come across them seems like the best approach. Paul August ☎ 19:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. It is a little disturbing for WP purposes that livius.org calls it a "rather free translation" of the Periochae. Is the Loeb (LCL 404, quite wonderful numbering) no good? NebY (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You can't link the Loeb. (To be clear, there are two worlds which I would like when it comes to the primary sources: either we just don't bother with including them in the bibliography beyond something like Cicero. Pro Sestio. – which is the convention generally – or we cite open editions which people can click on.) Ifly6 (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

currently links to nothing despite being an important presence in dozens of articles. In the absence of a clearly distinct body to create a dedicated article about, I strongly recommend someone bulking up our article on mob rule—which currently treats the idea as coined by Plutarch but having first arisen in 17th century Britain before finding its sole modern expression in the 19th-century US treatment of blacks and Mormons—with a new section on Roman rhetoric, reality, and subsequent historical influence. Roman mob could then redirect to that section for solid further treatment, along with an existing explanation of how (no) it's not the same thing as one in Sicily and Naples. Bonus points for even toss-off mention of the Blues and Greens in Constantinople. — LlywelynII 14:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the link for the racing factions for now, which might well be split off and expanded. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, there's at least that for them. I meant including a mention of them in an expanded Roman section for the mob rule article, if that happened. — LlywelynII 17:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

An article on Popular politics in the Roman republic may be worthwhile especially given Millar's work on the topic, though I suppose that may also somewhat overlap with the historiography related to optimates and populares and also may exclude popular politics in non-republican times (of which I know little). Ifly6 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There are already several articles on the political factions. That's distinct from the Roman mob (what I was talking about) in modern eyes, even if you could argue that Sulla wouldn't distinguish between the two. Literally, some treatment somewhere that Roman mob could link to through the empire, not just the late Republican Populares party. — LlywelynII 17:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The history section of mob rule is completely pathetic; this is the sort of subject that WP is still terrible at. It doesn't even mention Paris in the text. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no late Republican Populares party. Regardless, Popular politics in ancient Rome may be better for a wider scope. (Also "ancient" to avoid confusion with popular politics in modern Rome and its environs.) I do not know too much about things outside the republican period. But within the republican period, the subject would also need to be handled with care and disciplined by modern research, largely to avoid wrong, reductive, and outdated Mommsenian and pseudo-Marxist narratives. Ifly6 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Roman mob" is a topic for which it would be impossible to determine scope, because exactly what Latin term in Roman political discourse does it refer to? Turba or tumultus? Too general in usage. "Mob rule", if it means anything (I'm not sure it does) is not the same thing as rioting or political violence in the streets; Marius and Sulla went back and forth in employing street violence, for instance. Is Saturninus an engine of would-be mob rule, or its victim? Such a topic seems like a research paper rather than an encyclopedia article. We have some perfectly useless articles about the transition to Christian rule in the Roman Empire because people were using Wikipedia to try write amateur history instead of an encyclopedia article. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Which sounds harsher than I intended. I just mean that such a generic term is too loose to yield a disciplined encyclopedia article and almost has to be approached in essay form. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has come a very long way on undisciplined articles, especially in historical subjects. They can still be very useful to the general reader, scoping the field and providing references to better sources. But to repeat what I said above, mob rule doesn't even reach the Wikipedian standard of reasonable crapness. At least that means that it would be hard to add anything that actually makes it worse. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Rubicon—has been proposed for merging with Crossing the Rubicon. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Leucippus is currently a candidate for featured article status. Reviews and other feedback are appreciated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ionian Revolt has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 18:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)