Template:Did you know nominations/In Eutropium
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
In Eutropium
- ... that the ancient Roman poem In Eutropium criticized the politician Eutropius for holding an effeminate triumph? Source: Tougher, Shaun (2015-01-01), "Eunuchs in the East, Men in the West? Dis/unity, Gender and Orientalism in the Fourth Century", East and West in the Roman Empire of the Fourth Century, Brill, pp. 147–163, ISBN 978-90-04-29193-5, retrieved 2023-08-12
Created by Graearms (talk). Self-nominated at 19:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/In Eutropium; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- giant general references make it hard to verify - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - same grievance as above
- Interesting:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
@Graearms: Good article, but I feel as if the massive multi page references kind of hamper the article a bit. Just to take the hook for example, the hook is sourced to a page count of 16, making it hard to find the hook in the citation. So i'd prefer if more specific page numbers can be used for the citation. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Onegreatjoke: I edited the citations significantly. I added page numbers to one citation which previously lacked them, I specified the page numbers for one citation (previously it cited pages 33-54 when it really only cited page 36), I used the rp template to specify the page or pages being referenced each time one citation was used, and I added a reference by the hook in the article. These changes should address most of your concerns. Graearms (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- I edited the citations a little bit more, now everything should have more specific page numbers. Graearms (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Graearms, Onegreatjoke, and Vaticidalprophet:
I couldn't resolve some concerns I had about context and SYNTH, so I've pulled this nomination out of prep for now. Any ideas on resolving the questions? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Sorry for the delayed response. I have made some edits to the article which should address some of your criticisms. Now the hook sentence in the article should have a reputable academic secondary source next to it. The source I used to find the information originally was not the poem itself, it was the cited secondary source from DeGruyter.
- @Graearms, Onegreatjoke, and Vaticidalprophet:
- In the original source it was stated: "no testimony other than Claudian’s verses (Eutr. 1.254–271) tells us about a despicable triumph in Constantinople, where Eutropius is said to have acted like an old dame who travelled far to see her daughter-in-law (arida socrus / longinquam visura nurum, ll. 269–270)." Another quote from the source was: "Furthermore, after describing Eutropius’ “feminine” triumph in Constantinople." I stated in the article that Eutropius was criticized for holding an effeminate triumph due to the usage of the word "feminine" in the article.
- If you would prefer an alternative hook that does not state that the criticism was exclusively based on perceived effeminacy I would suggest: * ALT1: ... that the Roman poem In Eutropium criticized the politician Eutropius for acting like an old dame during his triumph? Source: Tougher, Shaun (2015-01-01), "Eunuchs in the East, Men in the West? Dis/unity, Gender and Orientalism in the Fourth Century", East and West in the Roman Empire of the Fourth Century, Brill, pp. 147–163, ISBN 978-90-04-29193-5, retrieved 2023-08-12 Graearms (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Onegreatjoke: As the original reviewer, can you review ALT1? Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hey there, sorry for the delay :) I do still have a problem that "effeminate" is used as an insult in this article. Just because the author of the poem thought effeminacy was an insult in the waybackwhen, doesn't mean we need to echo the idea that it's a valid criticism to make. Is there a clarification that can be made? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Whilst writing the article I was aware of the importance of portraying Claudian's viewpoints as his alone, and not those of Wikipedia. I attempted to preface each statement by clarifying that this was Claudian's perspective. For example, throughout the article there are phrases such as "Claudian considered," "Claudian wrote," "Claudian associated," or "Claudian saw." Rereading the article, I don't see any statements in which the article endorses Claudian's perspective. Would you be willing to cite some quotes from the text which you consider to be supporting his beliefs? Graearms (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, "It attempts to portray Eutropius as a corrupt, ineffective, and effeminate" seems to imply that effeminate is a valid criticism. More than that, I think I'd be most comfortable if there were some bit of text that put the notion of effeminacy in the context of the time. Why is important, what does it mean? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I would agree with the idea that the article could utilize more commentary on the cultural attitudes surrounding the criticism in Ancient Rome.
- However, I would disagree with the claim that the cited statement is biased. There is a clear distinction made between the perspective of Wikipedia and the perspective of Claudian. It is written in third-person language. The speaker, Wikipedia, is describing the perspective of another entity, not describing its own perspective. Wikipedia is not claiming that Eutropius is corrupt, ineffective, or effeminate. The article is merely stating that Claudian viewed him that way, which he did. The article also makes no attestations to the veracity of Claudian’s argument. In the previous sentence, the article describes Claudian’s account as fictional. The article also states that he merely attempted to portray Eutropius as effeminate, not that he successfully proved his claims or that his argument had any merit.
- At every other point in the article, there is clear distance between the claims of Claudian and the perspective of Wikipedia. In the paragraph which discusses Claudian’s criticism of effeminacy, each statement is clarified to be Claudian’s view. There are phrases such as: “Claudian considered,” “Claudian wrote,” “Claudian also criticized." All of these phrases showcase to the reader that the criticism is the opinion of Claudian, and not the opinion of Wikipedia. Graearms (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- You certainly did do a good job of that :) my point was more that if it says "he criticized him as corrupt and effeminate", without any context anywhere in the article, that kind of implies that it's normal to criticize guys for being effeminate. Like, you wouldn't write "he criticized him as kind, warm-hearted, and corrupt" without explaining it, because those first two things are not things people get criticized for. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron: You're basically advising Graearms to WP:SYNTH, by going after detail not mentioned in the sources, and about Roman views of effeminacy in general -- all on the assumption that your personal qualms, about it not seeming okay to be effeminate, should be addressed by encyclopedic content relating to people living in Ancient Rome. (The actual point: it did not seem okay to the Romans; and even today, most cultures would agree, rightly or wrongly, that men and woman have different roles, and therefore different traits.) Please stop making the editor jump through hoops for this very, very questionable approach to editing. I would suggest that even people who do agree with you, that effeminate men are desirable, can find it historically interesting that the Romans did not agree with them (which is all that the hook actually says), and they don't need to be given a trigger warning. Dahn (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- To analogize, our article on Cornerstone Speech takes great pains to not only separate Alexander H. Stephens from wikivoice, but also to not treat his white supremacy with an ounce of credulity. It makes it clear that his values hew to
the "great truth" of white supremacy and black subordination
, and that those values laid the groundwork of the Confederacy. As someone who cares quite a bit how women are portrayed in history, if there are no sources that say "we're analyzing this poem with a major theme of effeminacy through a lens that doesn't skip over the fact that it reflects the author's ingrained sexist cultural biases", then fundamentally, we shouldn't be placing this article on the Main Page. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Equating the claim and generic preference for manliness in men with belief in racial supremacy is an absolute stretch (and it does reflect your POV on this issue and how history reflects the "ingrained sexist cultural biases", not an established fact of life, and not even something universally agreed upon in academia); also, I cannot fathom how we get from following what the sources say, in plain English, to the supposed "need" for educating our readers on what they should think about the opinions held by Claudian. The article you cite actually makes a very neutral presentation of Stephens' (ridiculous) ideas, without an editorial voice, and then goes on to cite a qualified opinion, by Jaffa, as to why Stephens was being demented. Indeed, if there are no sources doing the same for Claudian's supposedly-criminalized opinions, perhaps it is just you trying to criminalize an opinion. The hook takes no side (not that this is a real controversy), and I say it does belong on the main page, and that we shouldn't badger excellent contributors into not telling us, plainly, that Claudian held triggering opinions. I see no point to continuing this controversy, and I consider this article absolutely verified, and absolutely interesting -- including for people who actually care about how gender was represented in that day and age, regardless of what current POV they may have on the issue today. Dahn (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)- Graearms Perhaps putting "effeminate" in quotes in the hook would clarify even better that the voice is Claudian's (or, at least, that the word is used by historians who paraphrase Claudian)? Dahn (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- To analogize, our article on Cornerstone Speech takes great pains to not only separate Alexander H. Stephens from wikivoice, but also to not treat his white supremacy with an ounce of credulity. It makes it clear that his values hew to
- Theleekycauldron: You're basically advising Graearms to WP:SYNTH, by going after detail not mentioned in the sources, and about Roman views of effeminacy in general -- all on the assumption that your personal qualms, about it not seeming okay to be effeminate, should be addressed by encyclopedic content relating to people living in Ancient Rome. (The actual point: it did not seem okay to the Romans; and even today, most cultures would agree, rightly or wrongly, that men and woman have different roles, and therefore different traits.) Please stop making the editor jump through hoops for this very, very questionable approach to editing. I would suggest that even people who do agree with you, that effeminate men are desirable, can find it historically interesting that the Romans did not agree with them (which is all that the hook actually says), and they don't need to be given a trigger warning. Dahn (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- You certainly did do a good job of that :) my point was more that if it says "he criticized him as corrupt and effeminate", without any context anywhere in the article, that kind of implies that it's normal to criticize guys for being effeminate. Like, you wouldn't write "he criticized him as kind, warm-hearted, and corrupt" without explaining it, because those first two things are not things people get criticized for. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, "It attempts to portray Eutropius as a corrupt, ineffective, and effeminate" seems to imply that effeminate is a valid criticism. More than that, I think I'd be most comfortable if there were some bit of text that put the notion of effeminacy in the context of the time. Why is important, what does it mean? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Whilst writing the article I was aware of the importance of portraying Claudian's viewpoints as his alone, and not those of Wikipedia. I attempted to preface each statement by clarifying that this was Claudian's perspective. For example, throughout the article there are phrases such as "Claudian considered," "Claudian wrote," "Claudian associated," or "Claudian saw." Rereading the article, I don't see any statements in which the article endorses Claudian's perspective. Would you be willing to cite some quotes from the text which you consider to be supporting his beliefs? Graearms (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you would prefer an alternative hook that does not state that the criticism was exclusively based on perceived effeminacy I would suggest: * ALT1: ... that the Roman poem In Eutropium criticized the politician Eutropius for acting like an old dame during his triumph? Source: Tougher, Shaun (2015-01-01), "Eunuchs in the East, Men in the West? Dis/unity, Gender and Orientalism in the Fourth Century", East and West in the Roman Empire of the Fourth Century, Brill, pp. 147–163, ISBN 978-90-04-29193-5, retrieved 2023-08-12 Graearms (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
@Dahn: I would agree with adding quotation marks to the hook, however since it is supposed to be a quote I think we would need to change the word from "effeminate" to "feminine." Since the source I used, Between Inaccuracy and Idealization: The concordia fratrum in Claudian’s Poems used "feminine" instead. The direct quote from the text being: "Furthermore, after describing Eutropius’ “feminine” triumph in Constantinople." I propose: ALT1:... that the ancient Roman poem In Eutropium criticized the politician Eutropius for holding a "feminine" triumph? Source: Tougher, Shaun (2015-01-01), "Eunuchs in the East, Men in the West? Dis/unity, Gender and Orientalism in the Fourth Century", East and West in the Roman Empire of the Fourth Century, Brill, pp. 147–163, ISBN 978-90-04-29193-5, retrieved 2023-08-12 Graearms (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)