Talk:Catalogue of Ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article is on a subject of -importance within classical antiquity.

Contents

[edit] To do

Nice article. I've indicated a number of places where we're using weasel words and need citations, and also attempted to break up some long sentences, remove some passive voice, and clarify a few items. I'm unclear on whether to think of this article as a list with a lengthy intro, or an article about a famous list. Jkelly 20:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dispute

The Catalogue of Ships is the name of a very popular podcast that has been featured on the Third Coast International Audio Festival radio program, "Re:sound," on Chicago Public Radio, it is an Editor's Pick over at the Public Radio Exchange, and the Artists have been invited to conduct a seminar at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. It is not a fly-by-night operation, and is distinctly part of the historical record of the internet and American art. I am not clear as to why the editors of this article insist on removing a link to the show's web page. MKCOS 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What does the podcast have to do with Homer? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Should it have it's own entry, then? Maybe "Catalogue of Ships (Podcast)" The show seems as worthy of mention on the Wikipedia as many of the obscure things listed here, and it is unfortunate that it would get deleted simply because it shares it's name with the famous passage of Homer's.
To answer your question, though, the impetus for the podcast resides in academic discussions concerning the purpose of listing the ships. That is, the show is a theoretical study of the epic form.MKCOS 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, to be fair, the entry is called "Catalogue of Ships," not "Homer's Catalogue of Ships." Entries on Wikipedia tend to be more inclusive than exclusive in my experience.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MKCOS (talk • contribs).
If there is a link to "academic discussions concerning the purpose of listing the ships", that wouldn't necessarily be a problem to include. That wasn't what was being inserted, however. I have no idea whatsoever what Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion are when it comes to podcasts. It is probably worth bringing up at Talk:Podcasting before creating the article. Jkelly 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am unclear on your logic, here. The Wikipedia listing is for "Catalogue of Ships." There is a popular, audio series (podcast, radio show, what have you), called "Catalogue of Ships." What would the logic be in not including a mention of this program in the entry? MKCOS 18:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This seems like a disambiguation problem. The Homeric passage is the most notable "Catalogue of Ships", and is the natural thing to expect at a page entitled Catalogue of Ships. If the podcast has something to do with the Homeric passage, then I see no problem with including a link. If the podcast is notable enough to warrant its own article, then a disambiguation line at the top of this article can point to Catalogue of Ships (podcast), or whatever the typical title format is for articles about podcasts. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the podcast's website, and listening to a little bit of an episode, it appears that it has almost nothing to do with Homer. So I'm not sure it belongs in the "external links" section; but if the podcast is notable enough, a disambiguation line would still be appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If you listen to the first episode, the connection is plain, and it is simply a matter of subjectivity whether the article in question should include the podcast or not. I can see some value to there being a separate entry for the podcast. You are clearly more passionate on this subject that I am, so either solution is fine with me. We can either leave the article as it is whith a small, innocuous mention of the podcast, or I can start a new entry. The problem being that if people searched for "Catalogue of Ships" two entries will now come up, possibly diluting the import of Homer's catalogue.MKCOS 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason to link to this podcast, regardless of whether it mentions the catalogue. Create its own article, and see if it passes afd. If it does, cheers to you, your podcast was deemed worthy of having an article of its own. Just inserting the link here is spamming or vanity, trying to employ the notability of the actual catalogue to feature your podcast. dab (ᛏ) 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the link. I hate the thought of being seen as vain.

[edit] Doing

I'm switching this over to tabular form, which I think you will agree is far more readable and useful. In fact it is VERY useful in scholarship. I commented out the items done, so nothing is being thrown away. Also, I'm throwing another pair of eyes (mine) on your work. I did discover one error so far, where the ancestors of the Phocian captains were listed as captains. As for the sources, I can probably find some of those from the books in my collection. But, don't wait for me. I'll be working on this for a while now, trying to create something the head-heavy classicists can admire and use, as well as giving readable information to the beginner in an attractive format. I'm pondering how and where to put in galleries of pictures showing some of those places. There is still some space left so some succinct but important things can still be said. I wouldn't expect to see such puerile statements as, the catalog is pure fantasy, or the catalog is totally 8th century, or there is no relation beytween the Mycenaean age anf the Iliad, but you weren't going to say that anyway. There's a lot more standard books that can be put in the bibliography. I don't think we will have any trouble finding references. In case you are wondering, I got some training in this, but that doesn't make me God. I thought it was pretty good so far, but if it can be made better, why not?Dave 04:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

PS A lot of the links are going to be wrong as the proper articles do not exist and there are few relevant disambiguation pages. These will have to be worked on over time.Dave

[edit] Intro to the catalogue section

This data here is wrong. A recount is required. In part it depends on who you count as going with whom. As soon as the table is finished a more accurate count can be obtained. But then, what do you want to count? Just settlement names, or regional names, or geographic names, all or any combination?Dave 01:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trojan Catalogue

Should the Trojan Catalogue be included with this?

I have put a brief article on this at Trojan Battle Order. I don't claim that's a perfect title, though it is a possible one (see the article itself). It ought to be expanded considerably. However, to answer the present question, the list of Trojan allies doesn't necessarily have the same history as the Catalogue of Ships, I don't believe it's ever thought of as forming part of the Catalogue of Ships, and it has its own historical interest. So I don't think the two articles should be merged. Andrew Dalby 12:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with Trojan Battle Order, although as soon as I finish tabularizing catalog of ships I plan to tabularize trojan battle order. Historically the scholars have been using catalog of Trojans. Catalog of ships is equivocal; it can mean both catalogs or only the Greek one. I too vote in the spirit of Wiki to keep them distinct as they are discernably distinct topics, each one has sufficient space to make it on its own, and the combination would surely result in a long article. The development of either catalog has scarcely been touched. The view that Homer made it all up or even the view that a sequence of oral poets made it all up has not been espoused by anyone serious in my lifetime. You find it in the authors of Schliemann's day, which makes him a pioneer despite all his imperfections. Today's writers on the topic spend a certain amount of time tracing the possible sources of either catalog. Like manuscripts the catalogs point to one or more earliers sources now missing. It is entirely likely that these sources written or oral would go back the 4 or 5 hundred years to the war. I'm not sure how much space we are going to get here for that sort of activity. To me a tabular quick reference is good because it lets you see at a glance who was there and click to articles covering those identities. Since the Iliad is the earliest western literature and has been being raked over for over 2500 years the effort seems worth while. Who were all these identities on the threshold of history?Dave 14:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
As I've said at Talk:Trojan Battle Order, I don't like that title because I've never encountered it in scholarship. I'd prefer "Catalogue of Trojans". The articles could certainly be combined: WP has some very long articles, and an article on both catalogues would still not be very long.
I'm puzzled by your statement that "The view that Homer made it all up or even the view that a sequence of oral poets made it all up has not been espoused by anyone serious in my lifetime." Do you mean that "anyone serious" regards the Catalogue as a Bronze Age composition? In 1995, J.K. Anderson wrote: "I propose, then, that the Catalogue is the work of a Boiotian poet living in the late eighth century B.C." Or do you mean that "anyone serious" thinks the Catalogue's sources go back to a real, historical Trojan War, and the Catalogue therefore gives us information about who participated in that war? If that's what you mean, it's not hard at all to find serious scholars who would disagree. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[Copied over from Talk:Trojan Battle Order with amendments]: The ancient Greek title that corresponds to "Trojan Battle Order" is Trōikos diakosmos, title of a very long study of the Trojan catalogue by Demetrius of Scepsis, which is lost of course but was frequently quoted by Athenaeus, Strabo and others. The translation "Trojan Battle Order" was chosen by C. B. Gulick, translator of Athenaeus (whether he was the first to use it I don't know). I haven't seen it used elsewhere, and wouldn't disagree if someone wanted to move the article to "Trojan catalogue" or "Catalogue of Trojan allies".
I don't agree with the idea of merging the Trojan article with Catalogue of Ships. To rephrase my reasons outlined above, the two catalogues both contain some very ancient material, but there is every reason to suppose that the listings had a quite distinct prehistory before they got into the Iliad, and that prehistory needs to be discussed in each case. In addition, the two catalogues don't have the same structure. And the Trojan catalogue actually is not a catalogue of ships, while the Greek catalogue actually is.
A brief comment on Akhilleus's question above: see Joachim Latacz, Troy and Homer (2004) for a recent work by a very reputable scholar who aims to show that the Greek catalogue is very largely Bronze Age in origin. Recent discoveries of place names near Thebes in Linear B tablets, places which are named in the catalogue and were completely unknown in later times, strongly support this opinion, as Latacz says. How such a catalogue would have been transmitted, I find it difficult to see, but it is certainly a respectable view. Andrew Dalby 16:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I meant to add that I like the tabular format for the Catalogue of Ships and would be happy to see it applied to the Trojan catalogue too! Andrew Dalby 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Andrew, thanks for the comments, esp. the info about Demetrius of Scepsis.
Latacz's position is certainly respectable. But it's not the only position held by serious scholars--it's also quite respectable to think the Catalogue is an 8th century composition that reflects Iron Age political geography, or the 8th century idea of what the Bronze Age was like. As Andrew says, the prehistory of both catalogues should be discussed, with a good outline of competing scholarly positions.
I'll echo Andrew's comment that the tabular format is good, and should also be applied to the Trojan catalogue. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neoptolemus and Thersander

Should they be listed as leaders on this page as they were not listed by Homer

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/t/Talk%7ECatalogue_of_Ships_7945.html"