User talk:Athang1504

Welcome!

Hello, Athang1504, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

By the way, do not sign your contributions in articles. This is a collaboration, so nobody "owns" any part of an article. Also, use English, at least on this project! All the best, —Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, pay attention not to use signatures in the articles you create. Happy editing! Martijn Hoekstra 22:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythos

Please do not just try to redefine words to what you think they mean by replacing the accepted scholarly definition. DreamGuy 02:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek mythology

Your additions to articles on Greek mythology seem to be based on a Euhemerist view that the events of the myths closely reflect the lives of historical figures, and also on some unusual views about the dating of particular texts (e.g., that the Orphic poems are pre-Homeric). Please note Wikipedia's policy on "original research", which states that when primary sources are used an editor must "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable from another source"; treating an event such as the voyage of the Argonauts as historical based purely on ancient mythological texts clearly violates this. Since this sort of detailed historicising view of Greek mythology has virtually zero support in modern scholarship, the "undue weight" policy is also relevant, including the following: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." We can only state an interpretation of mythology as fact ("it is obvious that...", etc.) if virtually all modern scholars agree with it. EALacey (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EALacey is quite right about the Wikipedia policies. If you can actually produce a verifiable reference to the text of Manetho's Apotelesmatica or some other ancient source, then I would not have a problem with a brief mention of this eccentric view, totally at odds with all our other sources, appropriately late in the article. But without quotable references, it's worse than useless, and certainly being given undue emphasis in your edits. After writing the preceding, I see at Lycurgus of Sparta that you are actually deleting proper material you don't agree with, in order to add original commentary in your own voice (e.g. "It is obvious that..."); if this is the material you want to work on, you need a website that hosts essays, as it will remain utterly inappropriate for the encyclopedia until you can show us scholars embracing the theories in peer-reviewed journals. Wareh (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already mentioned on your "talk page" (56 Helios article), Manetho's book is not Apotelesmatica but Aegyptiaca. Although you accepted this error, you wrote that it was impossible to know what text I used because I had not made any references that the reader could verify. Again... what do you mean? Didn't I mention Herodotus, Manetho and Diodorus? What else??? Now, if I did, why did you delete this edit, as well as all other edits? There was no "conflict of interest".Athang1504 (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)---About Lycurgus of Sparta: I did not delete any proper material, but I only added some paragraphs about the kings of Sparta to show that Lycurgus, according to Herodotus, Pausanias and Plutarch, flourished around 950 BC. Therefore, it is not true that ancient writers place him in the first half of the 7th century (as it appears now). Do you consider this a "Conflict of interest"?--Athang1504 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of the work of Athanasios G. Angelopoulos

Wikipedia should not be used for advertising or promotion. Article content should not be created in order to attract attention to or promote a product. Your username gives the impression that you are too strongly associated with Athanasios G. Angelopoulos to make defensible decisions about whether and how his work should be incorporated into the encyclopedia's presentation of mythological and other subjects. Wikipedia guidelines state that, "An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page." See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In the future, please be certain that you first obtain consensus on an article's talk page from editors of established independence from your agenda. If the ideas win approval such editors, they can add them to the articles themselves, thus saving you from the conflict of interest. But, obviously, without the self-promotion, none of these ideas is going to be appropriate for inclusion in the manner you have been attempting. Wareh (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Maybe you are right about this because in some cases it seems that there is a "conflict of interest". I should have used the article's talk page but I didn't know that. Thank you for your advice. But what about the other articles? Why did you delete or reverted them? As for my username, it is obvious to anyone that if my plans were to use Wikipedia and Wiktionary for self-promotion, I would have used a different one. Athang1504 (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EALacey's comments (above)

About the Wikipedia's policies: In WP:FRINGE (Guideline) we read that Wikipedia "strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources in addition to these; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia." Again, in WP:NOR (No Original Research - Sources) it says that "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research" and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia...In short, stick to the sources." Also, in WP:NOR (Citing oneself), it says that "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia..." - So, in the article Jason (see the old version "The return journey" - The Orphic version) I used Orpheus' Argonautica and Angelopoulos' work (1997, 2002) to show the real return journey of the Argonauts. Now, my question is this: why they don't mention the Orphic version? Athang1504 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, you did not choose your username to obscure your connection to Angelopoulos. (It's confusing you mention him in the third person; you are Angelopoulos, right?) Anyway, while you are right that the policy does not discourage you from adding content to the encyclopedia, the content should never be based on your own work. As you suggest, in any case where your own work would have to be cited to support it, the appropriate place to suggest it is on the talk page, where it will be included only by consensus of other editors. Even if you believe you are not presenting "Angelopoulos theories" but simply primary sources (e.g. the Orphica), you should beware of the policy against an original synthesis of acceptable sources. I believe all the cases where I intervened showed clear departures from the WP:NOR policy and/or were conflicts of interest. Bottom line, Wikipedia is simply not the place to promote perspectives unique to yourself. It may seem boring, but the whole idea of Wikipedia is for a bunch of people to use knowledge of totally standard, totally non-fringe sources, and to bring it together with good citations to make an encyclopedia that's more complete than, but less original than, encyclopedias written by experts producing publishable original syntheses. Wareh (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]