User:UndercoverClassicist/Proposals for Citing Ancient Sources

Why this policy? edit

How does this policy fit with the existing policies? edit

Ancient sources are considered primary sources on Wikipedia.^[a] The use of primary sources is governed by Wikipedia's policy on original research (WP:OR), and its subsection on primary sources (WP:PRIMARY). "No original research" (NOR) is considered a core content policy of Wikipedia.

The following parts of WP:PRIMARY are particularly relevant when using ancient sources:

Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.^[b]
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

Use of ancient sources in Wikipedia articles edit

Style and format of citations edit

Citation format edit

Some Classical journals abbreviate authors and texts to save space (e.g. Hom. Od.). This is intended to save space in print; since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, it does not have the same brevity, and these abbreviations can be unclear to non-specialist readers or for less familiar texts. Abbreviated titles or authors are not a reason to remove a citation, but should be expanded into their full form when possible. See the similar guidelines on journal titles when citing scientific sources. Books of the Iliad and Odyssey should always be cited with the poem's title and with Arabic numerals, never with the now-outdated Greek letters (e.g. always Iliad 3, never Γ).

Bibliographies edit

It is best to keep ancient sources separate from secondary sources in bibliographies, to ensure that readers are clear on the distinction between the two. In most contexts, ancient sources are cited in the text, but not included in the bibliography.^[1] This principle should generally be followed where the ancient source is being cited directly, including when a translation is used primarily to express the direct meaning of the original language.

Sometimes, an article may directly discuss a particular edition or translation of a text, separate to the discussion of the text itself (see, for instance, the section of Battle of Thermopylae dealing with variant translation of the Epitaph of Simonides.) In those contexts, editions or translations may be included in a separate subsection of the bibliography, under an appropriate title like 'Ancient Sources', 'Translations of X', 'Editions of Y' or so forth. Care must be taken in formatting these citations not to allow the citation apparatus to mislead the reader: in particular, take care that the year of publication is associated with the translator or editor, not the original author. For example:

Homer, The Odyssey, translated by E.V. Rieu (1946)

Homer (1946) The Odyssey, translated by E.V. Rieu

The 'original date' of an ancient source should not usually be included in its citation, and certainly never included via the orig-date parameter in {{cite book}} or similar: reserve this for the date that a particular translation or edition was first published.

Templates to help edit

Footnotes edit

Explanatory notes edit

^ This is slightly more stringent than the conventional definition that primary sources are written 'close to the event', since many ancient sources are written years, decades or even centuries after the events they purport to describe, and often feature aspects typical of secondary sources, such as the analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis of primary sources. However, WP:OR includes the following:
Further examples of primary sources include: archeological artifacts … original philosophical works; religious scripture; medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings; tomb plaques and gravestones; and artistic and fictional works such as poems.
^ Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.

References edit

^ UCL Style Guide.

Bibliography edit

"Ancient and Sacred Sources". Monash University. Retrieved 2023-01-07.
"A Guide to Citing Sources in Classics". Haverford College. 2006. Retrieved 2023-01-07.
Arndt, Theresa (2022). "Classical Studies: Citing Ancient Sources". Dickinson College. Retrieved 2023-01-07.
"Harvard: Ancient Text". University College London. Retrieved 2023-01-07.

[1] This is slightly more stringent than the conventional definition that primary sources are written 'close to the event', since many ancient sources are written years, decades or even centuries after the events they purport to describe, and often feature aspects typical of secondary sources, such as the analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis of primary sources. However, WP:OR includes the following:
Further examples of primary sources include: archeological artifacts … original philosophical works; religious scripture; medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings; tomb plaques and gravestones; and artistic and fictional works such as poems.

[2] Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.

[FOOTNOTEUCL_Style_Guide-3] UCL Style Guide.

[a]

[b]

[1]