User talk:Cynwolfe/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Ping...

Hello, Cynwolfe. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Moves

Moving articles is not difficult. All pages not specially protected have a "move this page" button next to them; click on it and you get to a screen with two blank spaces, one for the new title and one for the edit summary; and a couple of check boxes which you usually want to check.

This will work almost all the time: it will work if the new title doesn't exist or if it is a redirect to the old title which has never been edited. (If you are undoing a move, the second case will usually apply.)

If it does fail, you can sometimes backtrail successive moves, but you can always use the {{Move}} template (in the form subst:move|New title) which will start a discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Spaeth on Ceres and Proserpina

She's a little more specific; these are priestesses of joint cult to Ceres and Proserpina, otherwise known as the ritus graecus cereris. These cults are approved, or supervised at some level, by the flamen cerialis. A top-down collegial structure is possible but unproven; the female sacerdotes to Ceres far outnumber the male. Does that cover your concerns? Haploidavey (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoo, well. I missed the obvious, and now I'm confused; but this is just a note here to acknowledge your points. Will get back to you asap (we've the sunniest weekend this year, and I'm making the most of it!) Haploidavey (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Better, but I'm still confused. Scheid has the old and new cults operating alongside at the Aventine temple. He doesn't say how this might actually have worked; if the new cult's exclusively female and the old is not, how do they operate together? Separate images? Separate cellas? And how long does this last?

Spaeth, p.105, cites Pomeroy, S., Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York, 1975, p.214 for the following: "...the priestesses of Ceres and Proserpina were the only women, besides the Vestal Virgins, who had the prestige of administering a public cult and of expending public funds." I'm not sure what's happening here. Has the regina sacrorum simply been overlooked, or... what? Haploidavey (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Still, I think your "independent" probably covers it. Haploidavey (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Pomeroy these days has to be understood within the particular politics of the 70s: note the title of her book. I myself was taught to view women in antiquity within narrowly defined roles, and as if there were no appreciable difference between the women of ancient Greece and Rome (let alone within Greece, since the Spartan women undermine a great many of these generalizations). Celia Schultz's book tends not to be driven by a narrative of oppression. I take it she's a youngish scholar; Susan Treggiari and Harriet Flower are among those who gave feedback on the book. Schultz demonstrates quite modestly but (I think) devastatingly that the many elaborate theories concerning why Roman women didn't conduct animal sacrifice (somehow menstruation is always involved, but of course men have to be purified of bloodshed, as of war, before they conduct sacrifice too) are hooey, since the regina and the flaminica presided over animal sacrifices every first of the month, and every "week," and nobody remarks on this as especially strange. The issue seems more to be that they usually didn't hold these kinds of presiding priesthoods, because the priesthoods originate in the patriciate, the original body of patres, heads of household in a patriarchal society.

The situation on the Aventine does indeed sound confusing. Does this result from the influence of the mysteries of Demeter and Persephone? Incorporating that into the existing cult of Ceres under the flamen cerialis? And this occurs (guessing) ca. 250–200 BC? Along with that business about the Saecular Games and the alter of Dis and Proserpina in the Campus Martius? I have been very slow to delve into this (see certain drafts languishing on my user pages), though it's something that interests me greatly. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a very useful post; I did squirm at little at Pomeroy's title - at the time of first publication, I wouldn't have turned a hair, nor would most of my age-group. I came across Schultz' work a month or two back (actually, must've been further back, as I read some of it for the Bona Dea article) and not an hour ago searched it for references to Ceres and her priesthoods. Oh, what a can of worms. Or a string of piglets (no wonder Ceres hated them). Are her priestesses married or not? Are they married but celibate for the duration of rites? Maybe widowed? Sometimes virgin? Of course, that only counts for the ritus graecus (or does it?).

In the matter of her older cult, maybe (OR alert!) Arnobius' certainty that Ceres' cult (Aventine included) begins with the "Greek rite" c. 200 surely counts for something. But then, all the sources are pretty late. It's quite as bad as Bona Dea. Phew. Better get searching (the sun's going down anyway). Haploidavey (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Devotio

I'm glad you succumbed to your entirely right and proper obsessions (see your message, top of page). I've popped this under its own heading lest it submerges. Thanks for keeping me posted - good work, and as you say, there's more. Some time ago I attempted a user-page foray into this very topic but abandoned it for lack of sources. I probably have more now than I did then, so if I... (you know the rest). I'm sure to need a break sometime soon from this current preoccupation with Roman Dog and Pony shows. Haploidavey (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. What have you gone and done now? I've not checked this in your contributions but seriously, teeth do suit you; there's nothing wrong with a good clean bite. I'd rather that than a polite gumming. Or relentless attrition by germs and spit. Haploidavey (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I checked. Fierce, tough, but surgically exact. Not bitey, because it's focused entirely on the topic and its workings. Honesty's the only way, and we all risk its astringent mercies when we edit. I'm sure it'll smart like hell (I know the feeling) but what doesn't kill us... (etc.). Haploidavey (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm grateful for any link with the phrase "leading to shock and loss of consciousness in envenomated prey." Not to mention a word new to me ("envenomated"). Cynwolfe (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not toothy, you're lovely. (Well, you might well be toothy - but I suspect not. Oooh, them Southern belles). But which, um, message d'you mean? The very very long one? Or the slightly less very very long one? Tee hee... Seriously, both were fine. Haploidavey (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting that the Circus article seems (due caution observed here) to fall into the "bloke-thing" category? Have you seen GPM's and NortyNort's user pin-ups? And I mean that. Bridges and dams are just... phwoar. Haploidavey (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

GPM is exactly who I was thinking of. Whereas my main interest is the frou-frou that decorated the spina. I'm such a girl. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for writing to me

Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I accept that starting sentences with "and", "but' and "because" is not incorrect and will not change sentences just because they start with those words anymore.

I am perfectly aware of interpretatio graeca. I think it's difficult to decide what information should go on the pages about Roman gods. I don't think they should just be mirrors of pages about their Greek equivalents. I think that as far as possible the emphasis should be on how Roman ideas aboout the gods differed from Greek ones. --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about being a pain. Your constructive criticism is very useful. Do you think that The "Birth" and "Consort" sections in the Mars article could be grouped together in an "In mythology" section? Could "Essential nature" and "Sacred animals" be grouped together in an "In Roman religion" section?

I don't think I've done too much damage to articles about Roman deities yet. This week I've edited the articles about Hercules, Sol Invictus, Mercury and Venus. I must say that the one on Saturn is the worst one I've seen so far. --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You didn't come across as being abrasive to me at all. I know it can be hard to get the right tone across in a written message to someone you've never met and I always assume the best about my fellow Wikipedia editors until I learn otherwise.

Do you think the "Birth" section in Mars could begin in a way such as "In Greek mythology Ares was the son of Zeus and Hera but according to Ovid Mars was the son of Juno alone" ?

Your point about only changing sentences when it makes them flow better is well taken.

I won't write any more until tomorrow because it's 2am where I am and I'm off to bed. --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Iron Age Roman Republic

Please see Talk:Roman_Republic#Iron_age --J. D. Redding 00:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Noticed your comments

Hi, Cynwolfe. I just wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation for your participation at the talk page for Palestinian cause. Anything that touches the Israel - Palestine conflict here on Wikipedia is unfortunately so very, very partisan that I'm just always glad to see people who don't normally contribute to the topic area weigh in. That certainly helps provide a moderating influence, and I'm grateful that you've taken the trouble. Thank you,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving such a nice note. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ping...

Hello, Cynwolfe. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Voceditenore (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek Love

As one of the main contributors to the article Greek Love I felt it important to let you know I have reverted the article back to around November. I am sure you will feel that a good portion of information you may have added was removed as I know I felt when seeing the changes today. Much of what was there had been removed for specific reasons that consensus and a very long talk page debate had settled. Now that some of that has returned I did a bold edit to returned it to about what it was before what I think were the appearance of essay and extrapolation sections. I hope to work with interested editors to make this accurate and encyclopedic and where ever possible expand in a neutral manner without going off topic.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And I have reverted it back again. Please read the second AfD discussion, and incorporate any material you find to be missing within the agreed-upon framework: that "Greek love" is the reception of a homoerotic model from classical antiquity, and that it should be discussed chronologically to demonstrate how the concept changed and developed over time. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review the talk page history and understand that AFD is a consensus to keep or delete not to override consensus of contributing editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that the AfD discussion is irrelevant. This case was not simply a matter of establishing notability, but rather how and why the topic was intellectually viable. Other editors have been working on the article diligently if sporadically for at least seven months; where have you been? I've spent hours and hours tracking down recommended sources and reading when I'm not even that interested in the topic. But really, I am so sick and tired of fighting anti-intellectual agenda-pushers that I've removed the article from my watchlist and you may eviscerate it as you please. For your information, I am not a gay man. I'm a heterosexual woman, and that was an incredibly inappropriate edit summary. I realize there are some people who think editors should only work on topics when they have a vested interest or an ax to grind or an agenda to push, and I'm sorry to disappoint you in saying that I am simply interested in the classical tradition and broadly in issues of sexuality and gender. Please, fuck off and don't come to my talk page again. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The point of the summary is (and by the way if it's inappropriate why do we have tags to identify ourselves as such and entire projects for the subject matter) that as a gay man I am not offended by such images so editors wouldn't assume I was pushing an anti homosexual agenda...yet you have assumed me to be anti intellectual and giving the impression of perceived superiority. Many editors have put far more work into that article, including me.

I mean, come on...I didn't come to your page and leave you the message about my changes to annoy you, but to be open about my bold edit and inform you as a contributor.

And wow....that was some last comment for an intellectual.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I already said I'm not engaging with you on this. Your agenda seems to be based on the mistaken notion that full and honest discussion of sexual practices of antiquity that are offensive or even criminal to us, and that were (mis)used in other historical periods to talk about a variety of homoerotic practices, some now licit and some not, should be censored. That's anti-intellectual. Notifying other editors that you plan to strip out relevant, sourced material derived from agreed-upon sources, and that for some reason your personal idea of what the article should be should override those sources, makes me angry. So I swore at you. Get over it, or have me blocked. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Comes

Hi, Comes Brittaniarum is plural because similarly to Gaul, it refers to Britannia Superior (capital Londinium) and Britannia Inferior (capital Eboracum. The "-am" ending in Comes Littoris Saxonici per Brittaniam, is accusative case singular, because it just refers to the one location. Oops just noticed my own spelling mistake in Litoris/Littoris! Brendandh (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)