Talk:Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Randykitty in topic merge
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae from de.wikipedia. (470056506 et seq.) |
merge edit
The Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae is basically just an earlier version of this one. As both articles are rather short, it would make for a more substantial article if we would merge them under the newest title. --Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, two different efforts in two different centuries, by different people with different methodologies. The articles are short, but have the potential to be expanded. Constantine ✍ 10:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Then why does the"Scriptorum" article say that the "Fontium" effort is an update/correction of it? --Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- See below response. Perhaps "revising and updating" is misleading and should be edited, but I do not think these articles should be merged. J. C. Ransohoff (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Then why does the"Scriptorum" article say that the "Fontium" effort is an update/correction of it? --Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Constantine. The CFHB is clearly inspired by the CSHB in its use of parallel texts (Greek and facing translation), and in its broader conceptual aim of editing all key texts for the study of Byzantine history in a single series; the project itself came out of general dissatisfaction with the quality of many of the CSHB volumes. Yet while the two series deal with many of the same texts, the CFHB edits them from scratch using entirely different methodological approaches, and has in fact added many texts that were never included in the CSHB. There is no formal institutional or individual link between the two. As the website for the CFHB has it: "The purpose of the new series [my emphasis] was to provide modern editions, in keeping with current standards of textual criticism, of previously unedited or inadequately edited texts" (http://www.oeaw.ac.at/byzanz/cfhb_main.htm). The CFHB page should be expanded, not merged. J. C. Ransohoff (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Withdrawn Thanks for the clarification. The article was misleading and put me on the wrong foot. I have removed the merge tags. --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)