Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Project overviewTasksCurationGuidesAwardsOur classicistsTalk page

Polis (board game)

New article of mine. Perhaps someone would like to add more sources, an image, or perhaps there is a Greek Wikipedia interwiki to add? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Andromeda (mythology) image deletion discussion

There is an image deletion discussion about the file "Clash of the Titans poster" in use at Andromeda (mythology). It demonstrates that the myth remains current, and that misinterpretation of the black princess of Aethiopia as a white woman is also continuing, a matter of misogynistic racism in the eyes of some of the cited scholars. Project members are invited to contribute their opinions to the discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Trajan's mother

An IP editor on Wikidata has added a different mother for Trajan named Aureliana. The sources for this supposed person seem to be from Medieval Spanish sources, while the supposed mother Marcia who is mainly accepted by modern scholars (as far as I know) is based mainly on the name of Trajan's sister. My question here is if there is any credibility to support the idea of "Aureliana"? Right now the Spanish language article for Trajan seems to portray that Aureliana is correct, which I'm sceptical of. ★Trekker (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The Spanish article suggests Aureliana at one point, but a couple of paragraphs down suggests Marcia or Ulpia with no mention of Aureliana as a possibility, and in the infobox says Marcia. None of the sources they cite for Aureliana seem to be modern scholarly sources, and from searching Google Scholar it is easy to find sources calling Trajan's mother Marcia, or saying that she was probably called Marcia, but I cannot find any scholarly sources supporting Aureliana. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The text in the article should reflect the consensus of reliable sources: if modern scholars heed this mediaeval Spanish source, then it should be dispensed with. At most, a comment should be added saying that some other source says that in the body text; if there are explicit comments that this source is unreliable it should be noted. Ifly6 (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There's an endless swath of claims that medieval literature has claimed particularly about the Roman past. If modern scholarship does not attest to it, or even highlight that medieval source's usage of it, it should not be reflected there. At most, this seems to be a matter only of historiographical interest. Sleath56 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Medieval treatments of figures from Roman history are still relevant, even when they can be shown to be historically inaccurate. So are modern ones, though of course here we have to be much more selective due to the number of treatments, many of which aren't necessarily notable. P Aculeius (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with that in spirit, there is a distinct difference between this and more well attested naming discrepancies like that of Tacitus' praenomen which should be remarked upon. Though entries there are not generally discriminating, I'd say a single offhand reference by a medieval source does not credibly qualify this alternate name for inclusion. Sleath56 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that other sources follow it demonstrates why it should be mentioned: people will run across it and wonder why it says something different from modern sources. Having it in the article explains that a medieval source gives a different name—what that source is, whether it has any credibility, what basis there might have been for it, and whether modern scholars have anything to say about it. Failing to mention such materials leaves readers in the dark about an aspect of the topic that they might find confusing. P Aculeius (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I came across this very interesting writing also in Spanish, sadly since I'm not that good with the language it's hard for me to make out a lot of it or asses it's reliability.★Trekker (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

A lot of reading there. The title is "The Baetic roots of Trajan and more new information on his family". The whole book has been put online by the author, along with some others of hers. According to the first endnote some of the work was presented at an international congress in Rome in 1998 Traianus Optimus Princeps; the author is definitely academic, a professor of archaeology at Madrid whose work seems to focus on Roman inscriptions in Spain. According to my searches on two pdf readers, "Aureliana" is not mentioned in this book. If that's confirmed, and since it's an academic publication all about Trajan's family origins, that's a strong reason not to mention Aureliana in our article ... unless in a section about medieval references to Trajan. Generally, one of the things that renders Wikipedia less reliable is when we make alternative views, alternative names and spellings, etc., look equal when reliable sources don't make them look equal. In this I might be disagreeing with P Aculeius, a thing that I don't often do :) Andrew Dalby 09:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not advocating a false equivalency here. A section on medieval views would be a logical approach, if there were more to say than simply "this medieval source gives a different name for his mother". That could potentially be footnoted where she's mentioned, or if there's any discussion of her to be had, then an explanation of what medieval sources add or how they differ would be in order. Under no circumstances should it be presented without context, as though the reader should simply choose which name is right! But leaving out that she's mentioned, or that the details are different in another source, would be leaving a known question unanswered, and that's my concern. P Aculeius (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Removing Collaborative Effort from WP:CGR/tasks

As per a decision agreed to three years ago about a collaborative effort dating to 2013 (see Archive 36; April 12th, 2021), I've decided upon seeing the project's tasks page that we are never going to make Theatre of Pompey a GA (at least in any remote connection to the collaborative effort's section being present on the tasks page). It's just kind of in the way for those of you who like to visit the tasks page. Yes I've lurked for that long :) Paladin Arthur (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I probably should have brought it up first to make sure we still feel the same. If anyone advocates for its continued inclusion on the tasks page there's nothing wrong with reverting and reopening discussion (after all, it was in 2021 when its existence was met with 'meh'). Paladin Arthur (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Lycurgus (lawgiver) and propagandistic content

This article really needs work. It needs critical appraisal, supported by a balanced, representative set of sources, by historians more modern than Plutarch. It currently contains text like the following uncited paragraph:

Some further refinements of the Spartan constitution came after Lycurgus. It turned out that sometimes the public speakers would pervert the sense of propositions and thus cause the people to vote foolishly, so the Gerousia reserved the right to dissolve the assembly if they saw this happening.

How wise and benevolent and utterly proof against conflicts of interest. And, for instance, it says that the helots were attached to the land, but that's about all. It does not say how many they were or how they lived or were ruled. So the vast majority of the people who lived under laws attributed to Lycurgus rate barely a passing mention.

I have no expertise in this area, but still know enough to know that this article is problematic. Some other articles on Sparta seem to have some similar problems; for instance, helots has uncited content on eugenics. HLHJ (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

probably most of the article should be nuked and stubified. while Plutarch is definitely going to need to be cited in the article, he shouldn't be considered a secondary source for, well, anything. so this is all WP:OR. it would be nice to have a policy that nothing before the 19th century should ever count as a secondary source for our purposes but I'm not holding my breath with this crowd... Psychastes (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I was partially wondering if this was content from the DGRBM but no, it seems even that article is in better shape than this one. Still well over a century old, and *far* less critical of reports of the Spartan constitution than I've ever seen a modern historian be, though. So probably still better to stubify this article than use the DGRBM. Psychastes (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Psychastes. I agree Plutarch counts as a primary source. Modern historians will, I'm sure, discuss his statements on Spartans, and I have no objection to such discussion being covered in the article. I seem to recall some Classical authors were a bit skeptical of the value of Plutarch as a source, too. If you'd like to nuke and stubify, go ahead.

Since the broader problem of panegyric accounts of Sparta seem to have links with 20th-century fascism (see, for instance, Agoge#19th – 21st centuries), I think I will also ping K.e.coffman, who has done a lot of good work in that area. HLHJ (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Stubify done. I've kept the first couple sentences. Probably some small amount of the info I removed could be added back, but it's all tangled up with uncritical citations of ancient authors so I erred on the side of not having wrong information. Also, agreed that the links to fascism make this the sort of misinformation that should be removed with more enthusiasm. Psychastes (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I've actually cut a bit more, since I'm not sure if his reforms were military-oriented or not, and I know there is a serious historical arguement the Spartan constitution was not actually effective at promoting equality (even just among the tiny minority of Spartiates), military fitness (as measured by, say, military skills or performance), or even austerity (among Spartiates). I've also edited the template message.[1] HLHJ (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You've taken a C-class Level 4 Vital article that was twenty years old with over 800 edits, and reduced it to four sentences with a single source. This was undertaken in the course of a few minutes, without any prior discussion on the article's talk page, or any involvement by any of the more active editors in this WikiProject. This has to be the most extreme example of its kind that I've ever seen on Wikipedia.

So the article cited Plutarch: it also cited a lot of fairly well-regarded modern historians, now consigned to the dustbin (I'm no expert either, but I recognize J. B. Bury, N. G. L. Hammond, and Michael Grant; I'm currently reading one of Grant's books, though not the one that was cited). The remedy for uncritical statements is to substitute more critical ones, or place them in context; not to delete everything so that there's no information left. You said that the DGRBM article was in better shape than this one; that's not hard to believe, since those articles were written by the finest classical scholars of their day, and relatively little that is new can have been "discovered" about Lycurgus since that time, although certainly attitudes toward history have changed (and of course that has to be accounted for). But you could do a lot worse than cite the DGRBM; in fact, you have: now readers searching for information on Lycurgus will find nothing.

WP:TNT is supposed to be used only when there is nothing worth saving in an article, and that's a heck of a conclusion to reach given the number of experienced editors who've contributed to it over the last two decades. TNT is just another form of deletion, and deletion, as is rightly said, is not cleanup. One of you claims to have no expertise on the subject, and neither of you seem to have any prior involvement with the article. Do either of you intend to rewrite it from scratch, or are you just planning to leave it a pile of rubble in the hopes that someone else will come along and write something? I certainly wouldn't want to make the effort, given what was just done to the article. I realize that just voicing this opinion will probably result in some very angry replies. But I'd like to hear from other members of this project: was this "stubification" a good idea, and was this the right way to go about it? P Aculeius (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

In my view, a (real) discussion should have been had. A rewrite should have been done. The rewrite then should have replaced the original text. I wouldn't oppose reverting stubification; but at the same time I'm unconvinced that the original text had much of any value. I have no idea why WP:TNT is at all relevant; that, and WP:TNTTNT, relate to real deletions – those purge page history – and not stubifications. Ifly6 (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If we had to rewrite every bad article on this project before removing a bunch of bunk, we'd never get anything done. Deleting most of the content in a poorly researched article full of WP:OR encourages people to add material in a collaborative project, one person pledging to go off on their own and rewrite the article results in no changes to the actual article people read until they get around to finishing it (which, let's be honest, most of the time is "never") Psychastes (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Who are we? Ifly6 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(and FWIW I'm similarly confused about the invocation of WP:TNT. the content is all still there in the page history, if there's anything worth scavenging from there, which there probably is, it can just be copied from a prior version) Psychastes (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an important point, and I don't intend to argue it, but WP:TNT is effectively what was done here. That essay doesn't say that it refers to the deletion of the entire article, although that's one way to implement it; it also refers to deleting the contents, and keeping the title, and subsequently it mentions "stubifying". Since practically everything in the article was in fact deleted, including perfectly good sources besides Plutarch (although as everyone here seems to admit, Plutarch does need to be cited alongside what modern writers say about him), the article was pretty much "blown up" (in fact, the discussion above expressly refers to "nuking" it; I don't see any productive reason to quibble over the type of explosive used). P Aculeius (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Plutarch is not "well-regarded" among modern historians. Plutarch is a primary source, and interpreting primary source data is a job for historians. not for wikipedia editors. it's vaguely concerning that you don't seem to grasp this. Psychastes (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

PA said So the article cited Plutarch: it also cited a lot of fairly well-regarded modern historians, now consigned to the dustbin. Ifly6 (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I started some work on a rewrite some time ago here: User:Ifly6/Lycurgus (lawgiver). Many other projects intervened (and I realised I like Roman history much more than Greek). This partial deletion is tough medicine indeed; I don't find it particularly objectionable given that the original article was rubbish but a replacement should (probably must) be worked on promptly. However, I do find the mere minutes-long discussion here objectionable. Practically no time was given for basically anyone to weigh in. Ifly6 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I made a WP:BOLD edit. you're certainly welcome to revert it per WP:BRD, but whining about how your permission wasn't granted before someone made a change to a page sounds a whole lot like WP:OWN. Psychastes (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Different WikiProjects have different cultures; this one is more dicussion-oriented than most. That stubifying an article and then refusing(?) to contribute to it irks people shouldn't be surprising. Calling it whining and ownership is unnecessarily inflammatory. Ifly6 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether completely unnecessarily personalising a discussion by characterising people who disagree with you as whining is more or less unhelpful than characterising somebody not reverting you as WP:OWNERSHIP, but I am sure that neither is productive. Let's not. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

On the actual content, I largely agree with Ifly6. The Lycurgus article wasn't great; the stubbing it was probably overly aggressive; given that a discussion had been opened here the issue probably wasn't so urgent that it couldn't wait for some people to actually weigh in. Glancing at Ifly's draft it doesn't have the reliance on ancient sources of the previous text; I'm not seeing any obvious issues with what's written there and it's clearly more comprehensive than the current stub. Does anyone have any issues with promoting that to mainspace? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It's hugely incomplete and mostly focuses on historicity with almost nothing on what the figure is alleged to have done. I suppose it could be a starting point for a new article but an {{under construction}} is definitely needed. Ifly6 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it's less hugely incomplete than the four sentences we have currently! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've been putting some effort into it today (fortunately it's been a very slow day at work). I don't mind others editing the draft I have up already. Though I would probably want someone to take a look at it before moving the text over the existing now-stub. Substantial portions remain unfinished. Ifly6 (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Ifly6's draft looks much better than the old article, and I strongly support moving it into the mainspace. It covers pretty much all the points the old article did (attributed educational reforms aside), and it does so in a much more balanced way, with much better sourcing, and proper critical analysis of the ancient sources. I'm sure Ifly6 sees all the shortcomings, but it is already a vast improvement.

So don't want to give the impression that I am in any way unhappy with this outcome, but I apologize for the offense given by the speed of the discussion. Stubifying wasn't exactly urgent, as recent versions were similar, until you go back about a decade ago, when the "Lycurgus" article was much better. While it was still rather Plutarch-centric, it repeatedly drew attention to the fact, and included caveats like "Again, this section is taken mainly from Plutarch, a writer in Greek in the Roman period, and should not be taken as offering verifiable facts about Lycurgus' life, so much as thoughts of a later age about Spartan institutions and government." It wasn't anywhere near as good as Ifly6's current draft version, but it was more useful that the recent or current version.

The Great Rhetra article is strongly related in topic, and covers the writtenness or otherwise of Spartan constitutions and laws. I'm not sure I understand how it relates to the "Political and military" section of Ifly6's draft, which seems to refer to a single written text, preserved in fragments.

If the old article's "Depictions" section is to be preserved, it might make sense to put it in a into a separate List of depictions of Lycurgus article, and merge in Lycurgus of Sparta (David), an article cited to a single source which seems to be a blog post (and actually has an extensive gallery of artistic depictions of Lycurgus, together with a text retelling Plutarch).

Categorizing Spartans by century, and people by birth and death centuries, presents some difficulties for categorizing this article. Suggestions?

Could we discuss a few more articles? Sparta#Notable ancient Spartans lists a number of other biographies, many with similar problems. There are also problems in other articles at Template:Ancient Sparta; for instance, the lede description of Crypteia would fit many universities pretty well, and its body discussion of what the Crypteria was names three 18-hundreds historians, with their opinions decribed in the present tense.

What should, generally, be done about Classical articles which are largely original research (usually uncritical and unbalanced), or seriously outdated history? HLHJ (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Re Great Rhetra. That article confuses the Great Rhetra with the other rhetras. (The tradition calls them this because they're supposedly divinely inspired from the Pythia.) The former alone is the Spartan constitution. There are supposedly three other rhetras: (1) that laws should never be written, (2) that houses should be built by axes and saws alone, and (3) that Sparta should never fight the same foe over and over again so not to teach them how to fight. *insert chuckles here* See Plut. Lyc. 13 cited by OCD Online. Ifly6 (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, you broke the first rhetra! And I'm sure I've broken the second. No container for the plaster, no stick to stir it, no rock for a hammer, no chisel to shape a mortise, no way to bore a hole for a trunnel? This seems like a rule made by people who had never actually built a house (though Wikisource:Plutarch's Lives (Clough)/Life of Lycurgus restricts the rule to ceilings and the surface finishing of gates and doors, which seems more managable). The third... "if you fight an enemy long and repeatedly, you may lose" seems like a very unfalsifiable oracle.

Thanks for the clarification. HLHJ (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Lycurgus is just as far outside my area of expertise as it is that of the people who deleted the entire thing, along with the work of everyone who ever contributed to it. But anything would be an improvement over what there is now. If reverting it and working on cleaning up each section is not an option for the people who plan to work on it, then perhaps a viable strategy would be to look over the last stable version of the article, finding sections or topics that need to be covered in the new version, and working on rebuilding them one section at a time, saving anything useful from the old version and then building on it.

I'm tempted to pitch in, but I don't want to make things worse if there are people like yourself who have considerably more knowledge of the field and who plan to do some of this. It's just my basic strategy: use the most comprehensive scholarly article on the subject as a starting point, then build on it using other sources and what they have to say, including what the Greeks themselves had to say, and what standard modern reference works say about that. But you already know how to do this, so I won't harp on the subject! P Aculeius (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I was intending to come back and restore-with-rewrite the "Historicity" section, which I think contained the most decent refs, but Rotideypoc41352 did it first; it's currently part of the mainspace article. I've copied over some material from the old article into the draft, for Ifly6 to retain or remove as they see fit (one of the sources is 19th-cen, though used for a very basic claim). Is there is any other content anyone would like to salvage, from any old version of the article? The word pelanors is cited to a source which may be solid, but we don't have much solid content on the topic, and I'm not entirely clear that pelanors actually existed. Since the new draft is far better, and being made with more expertise than I can bring to bear, I don't want to obtrude with less-informed edits, but I'm happy to do some tidying-up as needed. HLHJ (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No objections here, that certainly looks better than a stub. Psychastes (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What to do about obsolete or original research articles

@HLHJ: Re What should, generally, be done about Classical articles which are largely original research (usually uncritical and unbalanced), or seriously outdated history? There have been discussions on this board on this topic before that all do not end up with any kind of consensus. Relevant threads, among others, include:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 41#Guides extension
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 41#User ignoring WP:ERA at Pompey (See my comments starting with Having read the original version of the article...)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 40#Caligula

There are usually two prior disputes. The first one is whether something like Plutarch is or is not a primary source. The people who think Plutarch is a secondary source rather obviously never read classics. The second is whether we should write, or contribute to, articles today based solely on primary sources. I think policies etc say no.

What you have brought is very new. Before, we were having discussions about whether it is acceptable to just overwrite an WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES article. Now we're having discussions about whether we should just stubify them. That's a massive shift in the Overton window. Ifly6 (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Having introduced the topic... I'm not comfortable with this just-stubify approach. At the same time, I accept that having bad content is probably worse than having no content. If we want to do things quickly we also cannot really wait for time-consuming in-depth rewrites. I've done a number of these; each one can take weeks. Rewrites of lower quality based on acceptable academic sources (rather than bad popular press or ancient secondary sources) should probably be preferred. If you want to do this, this is not something only one person can do.

Re Could we discuss a few more articles? Sparta#Notable ancient Spartans lists a number of other biographies, many with similar problems. There is, very simply, an insufficient number of editors who can (at all promptly) rewrite all those articles. We have to settle for third-best, which is probably a slow series of rewrites in order of importance. Your help in doing the work itself would definitely be appreciated. Ifly6 (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the links to the local discussion history, Ifly6. I share your unease. I was a bit startled by the proposal to stubify, but not as startled as people familiar with this Wikiproject, because I have seen similar approaches to similarly OR articles on other projects. When I thought it over, I came to the conclusion that I didn't really have a good reason to oppose stubification. I did not agree to stubification because it was inadequately cited (the editing community seems to be forgetting this, but uncited content is perfectly okay for anything except a WP:BLP, which this isn't). I agreed because most of the content was so poor that it was actively misleading, and it honestly seemed easier to start from a stub and re-introduce the salvagable sentences.

So I think source quality is a related but separate issue here (and I've added a section accordingly). The main problem is people unfamiliar with Classics writing really bad content (often because they vastly overestimate their expertise; it may not be co-incidence that Randy in Boise is an amateur Classicist). I don't think this is in dispute; no-one seems to have been of the opinion that the Lycurgus article was just fine and contained no problematic content, nor that such problems are restricted to that article.

The controversy around the wholesale deletion of the bad content seems to be on where the borders of acceptability lie; I think we probably all agree that no content is better than sufficiently bad content, not least because it discourages people from writing good content.

Policy is that we should remove content that cannot be verified by the balance of reliable sources, which generally means statements that are wrong. We are also supposed to flag content we think is unverifiable, and otherwise give other editors time to verify it. A decade is obviously too much time. Minutes is too short.

I, too, do in-depth rewrites, and indeed doing a decent job takes time. If I were familiar with the topic, I could write a decent overview quickly, but if I have to actually represent the balance of reliable sources, I have the read and understand them first. I'd love to fix every article on Wikipedia that is wrong, but I can't, and it also makes more sense for me to work on topics where I have some background expertise, or at least a strong interest.

So I'm asking "What should, generally, be done about Classical articles which are largely original research (usually uncritical and unbalanced), or seriously outdated history?". Specifically, what should I do when I come across an article which has really obviously problematic content of this type, and I don't have the time, background, or will to rewrite it entirely? What would help the encyclopedia most? I am completely open to suggestions.

I'll throw out a few suggestions of my own. Would an essay on the specific pitfalls of citing Classical sources be useful? We could link to it from an edit warning template given to editors who are blundering through those pits. Is there a more specific article template than the one I slapped on Lycurgus? Would removing the least-salvagable content a week or so after adding such a template be acceptable, at least in cases where it leaves more than a stub? Should digging throught he history to find a better version be part of the proceedure? HLHJ (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Would an essay on the specific pitfalls of citing Classical sources be useful? Many people over the years have intoned against writing primary-source-based articles. (I am among them: 1, 2.) I doubt that consensus can be formed but an essay is not consensus. It would probably fall into {{WikiProject content advice}}. Ifly6 (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a more specific article template than the one I slapped on Lycurgus? The usual template to throw on to articles that overuse primary sources is {{primary sources}}. I've thrown it on articles I don't really have any intent to rewrite. I don't think anyone is going through and rewriting (or doing anything to) articles so tagged. Ifly6 (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Would removing the least-salvagable content a week or so after adding such a template be acceptable, at least in cases where it leaves more than a stub? It would depend on the content. If what's is being cited is Ciceronean letters describing what Cicero thought of some topic, I don't see any immediate need. If what's being cited is the fantasy about the Alban lake's supernatural rise during the ten year siege of Veii and the prose describes it all as truth, I would remove it immediately. Ifly6 (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

On sources which are superceeded or require expert interpretation

I think that arguing over whether Plutarch is a primary or secondary source is maybe a bit moot, a logomachy that obscures a more fundamental issue.

Plutarch may technically be secondary or tertiary or even quaternary, in the sense that he is basing his writings on other sources, which aren't always identifiable. But that in itself is not reason to consider him reliable. He is often inaccurate, as noted even by other Classical authors, as well as subsequent historians; his biogs are written to be moral examplars, not accurate historical accounts. But that's not the problem either. Thucydides, by contrast, is a conscientiously exact source, and outright states that he is a primary source, writing from his own observations, on many of the topics he discusses. That is also irrelevant.

The key issues are shared by both Plutarch and Thucydides. Firstly, both pre-date all the substantial scholarship on their work, meaning that they are not the last word on almost any topic, and they are not in any way guaranteed to represent the current scholarly consensus.

We can see dramatic shifts in consensus on far smaller timescales; for instance, a 1985 news story stating that the US is not selling any weapons to Iran was already obsoleted by the 1986 revelation that actually, yes, the US was breaking its own arms embargo. It is just as possible for a new archeological discovery to falsify a statement by a Classical author.

Secondly, interpreting Classical sources has become a skilled task. We've literally centuries of scholarly work on how best to interpret them, because it really isn't as simple as it looks. They are written in dead languages, human languages have ambiguities, translations are by their nature capable of being misleading, and cultural context (like an understanding of the authors' perspectives, biasses and conflicts of interest) can also cause us to misinterpret a text.

This is not a new problem. If I remember correctly, in the 13th century BCE, an Egyptian medic felt it necessary to add glosses to the Secret-book of the Physician, a trauma-treatment manual written around 1600 BCE, because students were failing to understand it. What had been clear a few centuries earlier was now confusing (though 1600 BCE collarbones broke and healed ~just like modern ones).

It isn't adequate to just have any old modern source discussing these authors. Anyone can read a translation of a Classical author and spout uninformed opinion; pop culture does it all the time, as in medicine. Such sources are unreliable. Uncritically accepting the views of an ancient historian (especially Plutarch) is just not something a topic expert or reliable source would do.

My interpretation of yesterday's news story leans on the expertise of the journalist. The news story should not be missing any significant info, and it should not mislead the average modern reader (or it isn't RS). My interpretation of Plutarch is far less reliable. Plutarch is out-of-date and was not writing to be understood by the modern reader. Even experts lean on him with caution, through a hedge of caveats, as Wikipedia should do.

A reliable source gives expert appraisal of what can currently be known. A source is reliable only if it has throughly considered the information currently available on a topic: major primary sources on the topic (including sources not available to the Classical authors, like archeological excavations, or, say, DNA testing of victims of the Great Plague of Athens), and significant previous interpretations and other non-primary sources, which may have useful insights. No Classical source can do any of that. Most pop sources can't.

So two problems; Classical sources are superceeded by later work; and, interpreting them is a job for an expert. Reliable sources need to give state-of-the-art information (even if no-one has done any work in the field for a century), expertly interpreted for the modern reader. HLHJ (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Spartan mirage article needed

I think an article is needed on the Spartan mirage. The current article on Laconophilia and section at Sparta#Laconophilia doesn't seem sufficient. Ifly6 (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible that the topic Spartan mirage might be more usefully contextualized as a section of Laconophilia? You'd risk a lot of overlap and hairsplitting debate over allocating content between two rather fork-y articles. The two are mutually informative, perhaps inextricably. (Where I'm coming from on this: I've had some trouble lately with choosing a target for linking at times because the topic has been split so minutely into separate articles that linking to any of them would potentially misrepresent the intended meaning of the source I'm citing.) Cynwolfe (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree - no need. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The Laconophilia article generally does not contrast beliefs about Sparta with the historical reality (which I think is what you want to add, Ifly6, and it's an excellent idea). It's more of a he-said-he-said (sic) list of opinions, pro and con. Redirecting both Spartan mirage and Laconophilia to the content under some neutral title like Attitudes to Sparta might help; it would avoid having a "contrary views" WP:CSECTION subsubsection in every subsection. Currently, all the non-Laconophilic "contrary views" described are from Ancient Greece, while the Laconophilic views also run from the Renaissance to the 21st century, skipping a few notable chunks, including Roman opinions. HLHJ (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The Spartan mirage is a well-known historiographical concept, which in my opinion deserves an article. The founding book was François Ollier, Le mirage spartiate, 1933. Elizabeth Rawson (Spartan Tradition in European Thought, 1969), Anton Powell, Stephen Hodkinson (see Sparta beyond the Mirage, 2002) and Paul Cartledge have also dealt with this concept in depth. T8612 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This isn't some kind of obscure thing. This is a whole historiographical question. Ifly6 (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

But how much is there to be said about it that isn't or can't be covered in the other two articles? I don't mind too much what the articles are called, but like Cynwolfe I'd prefer to avoid too many layers. HLHJ's Attitudes to Sparta might well be fine. Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The Spartan mirage is certainly notable. If I understand, it is the product of strong opinions distorting descriptions of Sparta. If it is possible to solidly document the Spartan mirage without documenting Laconophilia fairly comprehensively, and vice-versa, I have no objection to separate articles.

Since "Spartan mirage" seems to cover both Laconophilic and Laconoskeptic illusions, it might also work as a neutral name for an overarching article, instead of Perceptions of Sparta or some such. HLHJ (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Gaius Servilius Geminus (prisoner of war)

This seems like a nonstandard way to name an article on a Roman magistrate whose highest office (praetor) is apparently known (though not the year). Gaius Servilius Geminus (consul) appears to be the only article on another person of this same name, and if there were other Gaii Servilii Gemini whose highest office was praetor in an unknown year, they aren't listed at Servilia gens#Servilii Gemini. However, I see P Aculeius in the article history, so perhaps this has been duly vetted as a legit departure from WP:ROMANS? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

My only involvement was a change in sorting key from cognomen to nomen. The page used to be at "Gaius Servilius Geminus (Praetor)", but was moved to its present title by Avilich in 2021. I assume this was because he was more notable for having been captured and held by the Boii for fifteen years than for anything he did as praetor. His year of office is not known, according to Broughton, and while many Roman biographical articles with offices in their titles don't have years, that's not a great practice if the year is known, IMO. So perhaps Avilich chose to go by what made him most notable, instead of his magistracy in an uncertain year, about which nothing is known. P Aculeius (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)