User talk:Cynwolfe/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cynwolfe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

-

ok corrected downthere I saw it as reference // —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.204.200 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Getting into the spirit

Haploidavey (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Crassus's grandson

I sincerely doubt it will cause any trouble; any protective soul watching the page would have answered the note. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Be bold, but be willing to discuss; my troubles arise from continuing to struggle after somebody insists on something silly. See this piece of alphabet soup. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Greek lyric, Greek tragedy

How kind of you to give us an article on Ionic meter! Any hopes to expand in this direction? It is strange that, not only (as you have also noticed) do we lack an article as desirable as choral poetry, but that we hardly have any non-author-based view of Greek monody, iambos, etc., either. What I can find is scattered and scant: Lyric_poetry#Greece + Nine lyric poets + Elegiac_couplet#Greek_origins + Iambus#Origin. Any opinions about the best first steps? I'm thinking, despite the fact that I have just been sprinkling choral poetry red links, that this is the wrong approach: what we really need is Ancient Greek lyric poetry, something that gives a good overview of melic, iambic, and elegiac poetry all together. It could give nothing but a rough sketch mined from a couple of companions like these --especially [1] for its topical division just like our ideal article; [2] useful as a supplement but organized by authors--and that would be wonderful. I'm just thinking out loud here, but I am curious if you have notions (with or without intentions) on the subject. Wareh (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Ionic meter isn't much of an article, and it was hastily done when I stumbled on choriamb and tried to provide a smidge of sourced info, but you are very kind to remark on it. (I can't for the life of me remember how I ended up on choriamb in the first place.) Many of the articles on Greek and Latin metrics have no source, as I discovered not long ago, so when I happen on one I try to throw in a source. There is a list of classical meters somewhere that takes me about five minutes to find. Quantitative meter is a redirect to Meter (poetry).

I've felt the absence of choral lyric to link to more than once (and at the moment have no strong preference between that and the title choral poetry, though I see that the former is ambiguous because it could be taken to mean the lyrics of a musical work written for performance by a choir). The absence of an overview article Ancient Greek lyric poetry is worse, and I too remember ending up at Nine lyric poets and thinking "this is it? this is what we have?" Are you aware of the scattershot approach to elegy (elegiac couplet, elegy, and elegiac)? So if you're pondering how to distribute your time, I'd think that Ancient Greek lyric poetry is the way to go, no matter what sources you use; it can always be plumped up later, if a good structure is in place. We would then have at least a section to link to on choral poetry. At one time I thought to get to choral lyric, after working a little on epinikion, but some fairly major articles on aspects of Roman culture (and trivial side trips) have been decrepit enough to keep me busy.

Although I studied Greek and Latin meters for a semester with Somebody Major in the Field and enjoy analyzing poems metrically and in the "Sound and Sense" vein, I'm not well-suited to presenting the stuff in the technical abstract. (Too much like math.) I'm very very interested, though, in poetry in its social context, as with Leslie Kurke's discussions of "song culture". With monody and choral lyric you can't really divorce the metrical form, content, and occasion. And the relation between choral lyric and the choral songs in tragedy would be useful … but see what happens when you click on Greek tragedy (there's no consideration of the composition of tragedy at all, even though it was about a competition among playwrights). I was sorry to see that McZeus, who in his various incarnations had worked a lot on individual Greek lyric poets, seems to have decided to leave WP — a decision to which I hope my bullheadedness didn't contribute.

This is a rather unfocused response. In short, Ancient Greek lyric poetry as an overview article in my book would be a stupendous contribution, and one that could be unapologetically sketched and outlined using a couple of standard literary histories. To repeat myself, the most valuable thing about this would be to provide an outline/structure, so that you could then work on it section by section, or here and there as things come to you. At some point, I would be interested in helping with section on elegy and choral lyric. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply to what was on my part an aimless ramble tacked on to a thank-you. Sometimes a bit of conversation is what it takes to plant a seed or see the obvious. It may take quite a while before I am ready even to till the bed in which to plant Ancient Greek lyric poetry, but I'm now convinced that would be the most useful place to present some basic orientation to the "song culture." (Indeed, choral poetry and choral lyric could probably just redirect there for the foreseeable future. I agree that it'd be worth the trouble to make the barest skeleton at Ancient Greek lyric poetry to encourage things along these lines.)

The Greek tragedy result is truly horrifying; for all my love of Greek lyric I'd have to class this a more serious problem. We need it as an article of its own that gives pride of place to something besides the ἐκκύκλημα. No more encouraging is that you can click along to Aeschylus and Oresteia and still (I think) not find a single good sentence about the style of the poetry (the closest is a section in Oresteia on its sociological "complexity," from which a clever reader could infer that there correlates some remarkable poetic complexity).

The five-minute-quest list you're thinking of is List of classical meters. I do dream of making dactylo-epitrite one day as a counterpart to my Aeolic verse. Wareh (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you have a non-inimical relation to the German tongue, and would like access to Sicking (the best handbook on Greek meter, and pleasantly and clearly presented) for any future work, I'd be glad to supply you with a copy. Wareh (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Wareh, I'm about to take a WP break for a couple of days, or longer if I'm lucky, but a quick note: I agree with you on Greek tragedy as a priority. I haven't looked over all the relevant articles, but yes, my impression is that there's no actual description anywhere of what a Greek tragedy is as a literary form. (I'm also distressed that Latin literature is essentially a list article.) I've a lot I could say on this overall, but am pressed for time at the moment. It is good to talk through things and brainstorm about what articles should be, but I often feel that it's contrary to WP culture to express actual interest in the subject matter — as if somehow arguing about policy will make an article appear. I've been trying to work on several articles at once and I think I've lost focus and am a little burnt out. (Sitting here with a mug of warm milk and feeling as if I'm coming down with something, too.) On the other hand, I would love to work on all these things. On the third hand (I need one), I have some things I should be doing IRL. So thanks for the interest and the offer of Sicking, and when my head clears I'll be back at it. Editors like you make this a much more pleasant place. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As always, my kindest wishes for your nourishment, recreation, and restoration! That the encyclopedia still has unclaimed territory in such basic topics among the world's interesting things may be taken as discouraging or encouraging, I guess. You have shown an inspiring knack for enriching the encyclopedia with topics we didn't suspect the world needed to know about until after your work was done. Anyway, my responsibilities IRL are a bit overwhelming right now, but I give you full permission to demand some real help on Greek lyric from me on New Year's Day if the subject remains unjustly neglected. Feel better! Wareh (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi to you both - I talked with Cynwolfe recently about the shoddy state of Greek tragedy / Theatre of ancient Greece. I happened in on your exchange here having followed links from Wareh's spotting of the misspelt parodos article - hope it's not too rude to butt in. Just wanted to say two things: to echo the encouragement towards developing an Ancient Greek lyric poetry article - it would be very useful to anyone studying tragedies as well as poetry. Secondly, I wanted to point you towards my draft of an article on Athenian tragedy. I haven't worked on it for a little bit (there's always so much else to improve) and it's far from ready to go public, but thought I'd point you there to reassure you that the Theatre project has it as a big to-do too. The form and structure section would be the place to develop the analysis you're talking about I think. I hope to have to time to return to developing it this coming summer. Kind regards, • DP • ^{huh?} 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see all that work towards a worthy goal! While as you can tell I am interested in the rhythmic forms of Greek poetry at a microscopic level, I believe what has been most egregiously missing is what you're attempting to provide under the headings "Subject matter" and "Contemporary criticism." (It's a bit hard to distinguish these two topics, since we depend on the WP:RS of contemporary critics in order to define the subject matter.) I hesitate to give armchair advice about what to do here; there is so much literary criticism of Greek tragedy (together with exploration of its topicality, cultural roots, etc.), and it's not as if we can present every compelling approach. Your draft privileges what French structuralists have to say, but that's still more attention to literary qualities than we get on many otherwise well-developed literary topics here (see below). If you can find more sources to treat a wider variety of interpretive approaches, I do think that would be great.

Ultimately, perhaps what we need are stronger accounts of the interesting issues and interpretations found in our sources in the articles on each extant tragedy, and on each of the tragedians; these could be synthesized in the overview article. It is interesting how bad Wikipedia seems to be at generating treatment of what our sources have to say about literature as literature. I look at Shakespeare and see the same blind spot; browsing a couple of articles on the individual plays, I see we're sometimes more likely there too to have geographical controversies, etc., treated than the few major literary themes and qualities you'd find addressed in any good printed introduction to the play. I added the (underwhelming) section Sappho#Qualities_of_Sappho.27s_poetry just to make the point there that we had discussed anything but the poetry. To some degree it's understandable that various kinds of technical information are going to be easier to address than the mysteries of great literature, but our reliable sources are as interested in the latter, so we should balance our articles on authors, genres, etc., accordingly.

On a practical note, perhaps it would be good to break off into sub-articles some of the more detailed topics (whether technical or historical, or, for that matter, poetical). As we go forward, this could be one promising way of getting the main article to be a well-balanced, well-proportioned treatment of all the major topics (literary, historical, technical, etc.). Wareh (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DP. I'm only checking my watchlist, but so glad you dropped by because I had meant to point Wareh to our discussion but was too tired last night to look it up. I think it was at Theatre of ancient Rome, where I'm afraid I bailed on you to go on to other things after realizing there was someone competent at work. Roman comedy is only a redirect too. This kind of friendly collaboration is so welcome and, dare I say, exhilarating. Looking forward to these developments.

And P.S. to Wareh: an article I need to link to continually is classical tradition, which I reckon would take me a good four to six months to do right. The preoccupation with identity politics that produced some interesting work in the 1990s for classical studies (but also a lot of stuff with a short shelf-life) made "classical tradition" a sort of embarrassing thing to contemplate, but I note that there are some quite recent books that have revived the concept. In a WP stemma of article generations, Classical tradition would be a parent of Classical mythology (and things like Roman law, which is framed by its influence on later legal tradition) which in turn is the progenitor of all those articles such as Icarus imagery in contemporary popular music. Greek mythology in western art and literature needs to be merged into Classical mythology, but it also seems to be trying to get at, and includes material more pertinent to, the notion of Classical tradition.

To get back to theatre, the Neoclassicism of Racine, say, is one of the topics to which Classical tradition points. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree absolutely about the classical tradition. Perhaps the collections edited by Finley and Jenkyns in 1984-1992 (The Legacy of Greece/Rome: A New Appraisal) could be useful, and there's the exploding field of "reception studies." Ultimately, we should have articles on the reception of individual genres and authors, and on crucial periods such as, say, Early Modern England and that generation of Germans that was taking root when Hegel, Schelling, and Friedrich Hölderlin were all boyhood friends at the Tübinger Stift. Wareh (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the undue weight to the structuralists at the moment is one of the reasons I've not put it in the main space yet--it only reflects what I happened to be reading at the time. The sources in the list already have plenty of material on alternative approaches, I just haven't gotten around to developing those sections yet. I had the German c19th flagged in my head as one of the areas to develop for the subsequent history. I wanted to get all the technical info down first, mostly because there're so many errors in the current theatre of ancient Greece article. The daunting nature of the volume of possible sources for the broad literary analyses you point to is what I think is to blame for the biases. Yes, the 50k length is a worry--I tend to create a draft of one massive article first, then to start summarising and splitting afterwards. The draft is about halfway through the overall process, I would think. Maybe there is material in the articles on individual plays that could be summarised. I've tended to start from scratch though, working out from the sources I have in front of me, rather than what's already out there. A little anti-collaborational, perhaps. Anecdotally, a drama school I taught at used "classical tradition" in one of their MA course titles as a "post-colonial" way of focusing on the European classics, which extends the term's scope somewhat. I think those broad, overarching articles are harder to complete than the tightly-focused, individual ones, which explains why there are still such big gaps in the encyclopaedia. And I added a misspelt parados back into parodos! • DP • ^{huh?} 18:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more about the broad articles being harder to do well than narrowly focused ones. Along metrical lines, I was thinking of the dance component: such as this sort of thing, and its relation to the pyrrhic foot (and here), which reminds me of what Ezra Pound said about poetry/feet/dance and how their connection shouldn't be forgotten. And here's an interesting treatment. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Mithraic Mysteries

Hello Cynwolfe,

I welcome your interest in issues associated with the Mithraic mysteries page. To better understand the background, you may find it worthwhile to look at the following pages (archives from earlier this year):

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already looked at these, and am aware that the fur has been flying, as my mother used to say. I'm trying to take a WP break, but I"m checking my watchlist on vandal patrol, and find all this business about Mithraic mysteries perplexing. My concern is that the topic is not being dealt with properly in the context of the religious history of ancient Rome (see Religion in ancient Rome and Glossary of ancient Roman religion), which is a topic area I write in regularly. I have a long ramble at Talk:Mithras Liturgy that can be summed up as: this seems completely in keeping with everything I know about the theological and ritual practices of even the Late Republic, let alone the Empire, characterized by syncretism. Much of this Mithras debate among WP editors seems (I could be mistaken) motivated by whether Mithraism influenced Christianity, or vice versa, and I don't have much patience for or interest in that, though it's a question WP readers might bring to the article and deserves to be addressed even if shot down.

I don't know the scholarship very well at all, and have trouble getting my head around the Mithraic mysteries. If this religion was invented by "the Romans" (that generality bothers me), then the Mithraic mysteries are unique, as far as I can tell. Inventing religions just isn't the kind of thing Romans do. Imperial cult, which at first glance seems innovative, in fact mostly transforms traditional practices. New religions at Rome are imported and adapted, as with the rites of Cybele ("adapted" in that Roman men were disinclined to castrate themselves in the service of the goddess, and instead formed associations for ritual meals and such), and sometimes accepted only after conflict and an initial recoiling at the threat to the mos maiorum, as with the attempted suppression of the Bacchanalia in the 2nd century BC, the success of which can be judged from the Dionysian cult imagery ubiquitous on sarcophagi of the 2nd century AD. The apparent masculinity of the Mithraic mysteries is also un-Roman. They make sense to me if they originated as a burial association (see burial society; sodalitas; and with caution Associations in Ancient Rome) for foreign communities living in Rome who would lack the usual social network to take care of their funerals (see Roman funerals and burial, currently under development). "Burial association" is one way the Romans tried to understand what Christianity was.

See also Columna Lactaria for one vanishingly minor example of how the religious practices of "foreign" communities at Rome may have left a mark. So I'm reluctant to discount the role of the Cilician "pirates," or other communities or groups of "exchange students" (aka hostages) and courtiers or dignitaries from places such as Pontus and Armenia. The mysteries of Mithras therefore make sense to me as a kind of ecumenical religion for the cosmopolitan population in Rome. I can imagine it growing from dining clubs or burial associations that served various communities who would've been mostly male because they were war captives/hostages/exchange students (Augustus was particularly keen on treating his hostages princes as exchange students) or diplomats or businessmen. This is also consonant with the popularity of the Mithraic mysteries among the military, who grew increasingly international in character in the Imperial era. I can imagine "Mithraism" taking hold in Gaul as an Imperially acceptable alternative to druidism, which was restricted by Augustus to non-citizens and then banned by Claudius; if I'm not mistaken, some scholar has pointed out that the bull sacrifice on the inside "bowl" of the Gundestrup Cauldron suggests a tradition that might prove congenial to Gallic reception of the Mithraic mysteries. It's my understanding that Mithras is more present in Gaul (I think even the tiny civitas of the Helvii have a Mithras relief) than the current article reflects. This all, of course, has nothing to do with why you came here; it's simply to outline the nature of my interest. I've been using Roger Pearse's website for a decade, and have great respect for his enterprise, though, as all this may suggest, I come at this topic from a markedly different perspective, and have only communicated with him directly quite recently. I'd like for him to respond to your action before I comment on it. At the same time, as I say at the SPI, I can see the basis for your inquiry. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing these thoughts. My own knowledge and understanding of these matters is far from complete (I've actually done more study about traditions of India than those of ancient Rome) but there is clearly a range of opinions among the academics (who don't necessarily stay wedded to one opinion throughout their academic life either). I am glad you mentioned the Mithras Liturgy page, I've just taken a look at it, and the deletions made 2 weeks ago by Bookman2001 strongly reminded me of the more recent ones done to the Mithraic mysteries page by the UK IP character. Not only what was done, but the sort of justifications offered... I note that Bookman2001 has failed to respond to your invite to discuss on the talk page. Like you I think the page needs expansion, not minimalism! I've put back the info deleted, and have added the name of Bookman2001 to suspected sockpuppets of RP. I am aware that suspicion and proof are two different things, and I suppose it is quite conceivable that the person responsible is somebody else — however, it does appear that there is someone involved here who does not want these pages to be comprehensive sources of information. I do agree with you, by the way, that the Tertullian Project site deserves great respect, as I think I already mentioned on the Mithraic Mysteries talk page. I only wish its editor could treat the rest of us with consistent respect as well. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pizza effect

I agree with you that the topic of Mithraism could be contextualized more in terms of Roman religious history. Your point about the Mithras Liturgy is a good one — its "synchretic" character is hardly surprising in the context of its period, nor does that necessarily make it something different from "Mithraism", unless it is considered that Mithraism itself was not synchretic.

Words like "Roman invention" or "Roman innovation" may be something of a simplification of the way some academics have seen the Mysteries. Perhaps the argument is that the underground temples with their images of the taurochtony are distinctive and impressive, that they appear in late 1st century CE and in the context of the Roman Empire, so they seem to represent something Roman and new.

Having said that, it is not very hard to find statements in recent academic literature about the historical evidence re Pontus, Cilician pirates. Or about Tiridates' delegation from Armenia, which I think was mentioned in some earlier versions of the Mithraic Mysteries page. One thing about that page: even in its pre-February form, it was an excellent source of links and book titles.

That may be part of the reason for what I felt about the mega-deletions that were done a couple of days ago: they weren't even about putting the article back like it was in February, rather they were a comparatively sophisticated attempt to tear out as much information as possible without actually blanking the whole thing. I am sure no-one will ever admit responsibility, and since an IP address was used, I suppose we will never know for sure; even now that the SPI check-user has established just who did the (somewhat less nasty) cuts to the Mithras Liturgy page. But the beautiful thing about a wiki is that cuts can be reversed.

Returning to questions of religious history — have you ever heard the term "pizza effect", Cynwolfe? It is a metaphor applied to interaction of eastern and western cultures in the 19th and 20th century, but perhaps also applicable to ancient Rome and e.g. Asia Minor. The argument is that the pizza, in Italy, was quite a simple dish, and wasn't considered very interesting; but then the Americans "discovered" it and started adding bells and whistles; which then gave a new impetus to pizza cooking in Italy itself.

So, where will that leave historians two thousand years in the future, who will contemplate the petrified remains of a half-eaten Super Supreme, and try to figure out whether it is something Italian or something American? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A PS - I have just read your statement on the SPI page. I understand and respect your sense of disappointment in becoming aware of bad behavior by someone you have liked and respected. I'm sorry that this happened to you, Cynwolfe. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You are very kind to say that, and the pizza comment tickled me. I don't really feel that something has happened to me, but I am indeed disappointed that any WP editor would claim scholarly gravitas while using deceit. Either you believe that the process should be about reasoned debate based on the scholarship, or you don't. It's one thing to be passionate in the quest for quality and high intellectual standards (I have quite a high tolerance for rhetoric that most consider "uncivil"), but quite another to be motivated by emotional and psychological needs extraneous to the disinterested pursuit of knowledge; this usually indicates that an agenda is lurking somewhere. Mithraic mysteries is far from the worst article on ancient religion, and I'd be happy if it were locked to all editing right now. I don't think I've quite discerned what's afoot there, but I'm starting to suspect that I would dislike it a lot if I did. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Naughty boys

He was dissing Dionysus, so I gave him a template. Such an irregular! Haploidavey (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pentheus templated by maenads? Haploidavey (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So the foul-mouthed child thought to leave his little droppings here too. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, whiffy, though less fulsome than the stench-blast original (now deleted from my talk-page history). The piddling bit of self-censorship ("&*^%$£ etc") was a bizarre touch, eh? Haploidavey (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? Did you request that? I don't want mine deleted from the history. My life on Wikipedia's an open book. I say too much! Perhaps that is why I'm so incensed by sockpuppetry. If you're going to make a fool of yourself, do it proudly. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't ask for it. An admin done it. In some perverse fashion, I even miss it - y'know, something to look back on in those long winter evenings. When all else has faded beyond recall, "ass-sucker" would've been there to remind me I'd done the right thing and embraced a proud martyrdom at the hands of a puking child. On the rest, youse surely is an open book. A blog, even. Weenie, where is thy sauce? Where thy victory? Haploidavey (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was charming (I took a peek - mewling came to mind) - too insecure for a Bacchante, I reckon, but as in days of yore, vigorous suppression, disinfectant and, as a last resort, Delbert Grady's ultimate caretaker regime should clear it up in no time. Next! Haploidavey (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the ways in which WP has been a learning experience for me. As a heterosexual mom and wife (there are those who would be tempted to add a "rampantly"), I guess I was blissfully unaware of the petty homophobia that grinds away in everyday life in addition to frightening and obvious examples. Or insufficiently aware. Even if the homophobic language in the vandalism here had nothing to do with some of my recent contributions, gay slurs are pervasive in vandalism throughout the encyclopedia, or at least in the articles I watch on masculine subjects in antiquity. They reveal a hateful way of thinking. And then of course there was that "disgusting vice" remark offsite; you may know what I mean. Plenty of straight people have sexual pleasures I would find disgusting, but how is that any of my concern? Unless, of course, I secretly wonder whether I'd like it but am afraid to find out. Straight men may be turned off by male-male sex and reject it, but dignified men of any sexual orientation don't need to parade their antipathy and condemn the sexuality of others. (Not to mention the Pakistani slurs; that depth of persecution paranoia is just bizarre. The ISI is out to get me! The difference between the mewling infants and that entity is perhaps more minimal than one would wish, since intellect can only make up for a certain amount of ethical and moral lassitude.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I know what you are referring to about the Pakistani slur... The idea that I'm Pakistani wasn't a very good guess, actually... Anyway, I think you were right when you wrote a few days ago, on another talk page, that bad (or even infantile) behavior by a certain entity should not prevent us from acknowledging the same person's positive contributions to making info available. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I see some confusion here?-Civilizededucation^talk 07:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Civ, it is possible that someone (not Cynwolfe, but the offsite blogger she mentioned) has somehow confused you with me. The blogger noticed that you contributed to several articles about geography of Pakistan, and not only concluded that you are Pakistani, but also that I am (though didn't mention either of us by name). Sings: April in Karachi! Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Offsite blogger? And me pakistani? Both these items are news to me. I had thought that you had hopped onto this thread thinking it to be one of the threads related to the mithraic mysteries article. Now, it seems that I am the one who is confused. Did try to do some ferreting on the net to get what this is all about, but couldn't locate the site you two seem to be talking about.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

For transparency's sake, and to avoid further confusion, here's the blog. It's all there, and all's been said. I find it immensely dispiriting, so I'll make no further comment here. Haploidavey (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, as usual I've shot off my mouth when I shouldn't have (a bad habit from when I used to get paid for having provocative opinions), because Davey can read my not-so-secret codes. Usually what happens in Vegas should stay in Vegas. Then again, I think there's something dishonorable about criticizing people in a forum where they have no opportunity to respond. Is it still incivility if it's offsite? Before this I would've said, keep it separate. At any rate, I've now achieved catharsis and will let it go and archive this later today. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Mithraic Mysteries – external links

Hello Cynwolfe. Thought I would let you know that further comments have been added to Talk:Mithraic_mysteries#Primary_sources_link — the thread about the external link to Roger's collection of texts. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I got hands on Clauss in translation this weekend. I probably won't do anything to the article for a while, but I'll do as you suggested elsewhere and keep an eye out. Actually, the more I thought about your kind words above, the more I realized that in fact I do feel as if something about this incident has affected me, because it's just such a disappointment. Some of the things said on the blog make me thoroughly regret supporting the editor's activities even on an intellectual level, because I no longer have confidence that the scholarship is disinterested. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I hear you, Cynwolfe. Thanks for letting me know what I wrote seems more relevant now. Perhaps this incident has been a learning experience, for more than one of us. Topics of religion are close to the human heart, and I wonder whether anyone can truly be disinterested? It may be that the only way a WP article comes close to neutrality is if the biases of different editors and sources can balance each other out. Glad you've got Clauss now as an additional source for your own understanding of the topic — I haven't yet studied him myself, but I know he's important in the field. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I do not know whether this would make you feel better or not, I do think that the present incident should not be taken as a reflection on whether the scholars are truly disinterested or not.--Civilizededucation^talk 09:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't the scholars I was worried about, though I see that I was trying to be overly polite and said "the" scholarship and not "his." Cynwolfe (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Agatha Christie

Hi, Cynwolfe. I'm not active in any of the WikiProjects and am (blissfully?) unaware of the methodologies of assigning importance to article subjects. In Christie's case, I'm guessing that the previous "high importance" status the article enjoyed might have had something to do with her being the pioneer that she was in the mystery genre and with her overall commercial success and public acceptance as an author, all of which were groundbreaking. The article should probably explore those topics in relation to 20th-century women writers, but it really doesn't. Rivertorch (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I appreciate her importance as a woman writing in a traditionally male genre, but I consider that mid importance in terms of global Women's History over three millennia, when compared to other topics such as Women's rights in Iran or biographies such as Eleanor Roosevelt which are rated as of high importance. Actually I consider it low importance, but was trying to compromise with the editor who gave the original rating. But we're in need of other perspectives on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History#Discussion to reach consensus. Not limited to project members, I'd think, so please join in if you want. (I'd affirm that 'blissfully' without a question mark, and rue the day I started to think about such things.) What I find strange is that Agatha Christie would be rated as low importance for the WikiProject Novels / Crime. Who the heck's high or mid importance, then? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Dacian Art

Are there dates or any other info (such as provenance) that can be added to the description on the file page? These are very interesting pieces, but I'm often frustrated when I go to Commons, find intriguing pieces, but don't know enough about them to use them effectively to illustrate articles. (I noticed the last image somehow and saw that this page linked to it.) Cynwolfe (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.metmuseum.org/publications/journals/1/pdf/1512767.pdf.bannered.pdf http://www.native-science.net/Gundestrup-Cauldron.htm

A good start from here :http://cimec.ro/Resurse/Biblioteca_digitala_en.htm#Museums and here http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?Lang=EN

Specific informations here:http://clasate.cimec.ro/ CristianChirita (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The pdf on Thracian art was quite useful. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)