Talk:Martin Litchfield West

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Text removed

The following has been removed, as peacockry, which is deprecated.

In fact, he is, with Walter Burkert, both the forerunner and most prominent explorer of the study of intercultural exchange between Ancient Greece and oriental civilizations, namely West-Asiatic, or Ancient Near-Eastern, ones. For this purpose, he learnt several extremely complex languages, such as Akkadian, Hittitte and Ugaritic, and has thoroughly mastered their scholarship and current literary corpus.

Another significant work was his translation and detailed commentary on Hesiod's Works and Days.

Professor West has made many other contributions, including his work on ancient Greek music, which has become the standard text on a subject which had almost only raised questions and problems for centuries.

Septentrionalis 18:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph only bears consensus in the community, it's hardly peacockry. We can argue if he's the most prominent or not (well, we really can't, he is - no one else has the knowledge of all the languages with classical expertise, perhaps except Burkert), but not if he's the forerunner. The East-Face of Helicon *is* the first important and exhausting study of that area. There are millions of articles worse out there. More importantly, that paragraph has relevant information. You should rephrase it if you want, not remove it. The same goes for the other two paragraphs, which do not bear any peacockry, and are relevant. The last one is not praising anything or anyone, it's merely the statement of a fact. Please be more careful. 201.8.17.254 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not putting it right back because I don't want to start an editing war. I'll wait for an answer.

Ps.: I wasn't claiming he was the first person to study cultural interchange between Greece and the Orient, although one can say he made the best argument, and the only exhaustive research on it. There is a recent book on Greece and India, by Mcevilley, though. He was, however, the first serious researcher of its relationships with Mesopotamia, or, as is he prefers, West-Asia. 201.8.17.254 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Insofar as I see any information, as opposed to panegyric, it remains in the article. None of this flattery is sourced, and the suggestion that no-one else has known all the relevant languages, or done Graeco-Asiatic comparative work, is utter nonsense. For the first statement, consider Otto Neugebauer; for the second, Samuel Noah Kramer. Septentrionalis 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The anon's addition consists of three classes of statement, some falling in both the first two:

1. Statements of opinion
   • West is most prominent explorer
   • Akkadian is unusually complex; presumably more complex than other Semitic languages.
     • These are contrary to WP:NPOV, which is policy
2. Unsourced statements
   • thoroughly mastered
   • standard text
     • These may be removed at will, according to WP:V, also policy
3. Statements already in the present text.
   • West edited Hesiod
   • He wrote on Greek music.
     • These have been removed as redundant, or retained.

I'm glad the anon enjoyed Professor West's books; but Wikipedia is neither a collection of blurbs nor a fanzine. Septentrionalis 01:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I can hardly tell if Kramer had a classical grounding. It's besides the point because he obviously didn't use that in any of his works. Could *you* source that? If you tell me one book by Kramer that covers a third of the ground The East Face of Helicon does I might begin to reconsider you being a sentient being. That I have been doubting since the very funny and out of place comment on the Burkert talk page. And I'm not sure if he covered all languages West did. Hebrew, doubtlessly. The rest is casted below. Neugebauer was a scholar devoted to the study of Exact Sciences. He did not cover the areas West did; we can hardly say he specialized in cultural interchange. Yes, he knew Akkadian, but West has mastered Phoenician, Hebrew, Hittite and Ugaritic, that I know of. There are passages translated by him coming from Egypcian, Sumerian, and others, and he went after those sources too. That is required to investigate the subject, since Greece received influences from more than one spot and period. As to the complexity of Akkadian, I didn't mean Akkadian only, but you obviously have a reading problem. There are, however, factors which complicate a lot more the study of languages such as Sumerian and Akkadian than, say, Greek or Sanskrit. The first one being, they haven't been studied enough. There isn't even a complete and reliable dictionary of Sumerian, and one small text can give the specialist a lot of pain to read. For the second one, you could take a peek at any clay tablet from Mesopotamia. That is one huge problem, and not much has been edited that the researcher doesn't have to deal with them.

As to unsourced perhaps you could do us all a favour and read the Balzan Prize page which is both linked and quoted. The Balzan is prestigious enough so that it represents people who know what they're talking about, certainly more than you. More money than the Nobel, as they say. Of course, for the first one (thoroughly mastered), you could also read the book, that is, if you're even capable of that. Don't blame your illiteracy on others.

Furthermore, there are statements of opinion all over Wikipedia. If it's consensus, as it is here, I hardly think it should be a problem. Ask anyone in the field who's the most prominent explorer of Greek-Western-Asiatic cultural exchange (very different to Asiatic, a larger label). There's no competition, since there's no other work of breadth in the field (let's make it clear again, so that you don't make a mess as usual: the field is the influence of Mesopotamia, or West-Asia, on Greek Poetry Myth, and Philosophy), perhaps aside from Burkert. You however, are ineffably anal and indigestable, so it might be out of the point to continue this. There are statements of opinion in any encyclopedia, even the Britannica. Whatever Wikipedia is, it sucks very much the restrictive way you want it to be. 201.8.17.254 00:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hagiographical tone unsuitable

This has to read as an encyclopedia article. Phrases like 'enormously ambitious' are out of place. Charles Matthews 09:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The unlikely touch of misguided dilettantes also is. 201.19.143.44 02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to duck into other people's business, but calling that edition an ambitious one is like calling General Relativity an ambitious theory. 201.19.222.206 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what 201.19.222.206 means, but I would point out that West is hardly the only classicist to put out an edition of the Iliad--for instance, Helmut van Thiel published an edition in 1996. Comparisons to General Relativity are a bit over the top. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It means that his is the most groundbreaking and researched edition in a very, very, very, long time, and a monumental achievement.

P.s.: Would it be so hard not to delect that paragraph and simply type martin west indo-european on google? Leave this to people who have a clue what they're talking about. Gee. 201.19.210.112 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your statement. I doubt that many classicists would agree with it; for published reactions to West's edition, see Nagy's and Nardelli's reviews in BMCR, and Janko's more approving piece in (I think) the Classical Review. Note that an edition can be quite good and useful and still not deserve the labels "groundbreaking". I think just about any classicist would say that West's edition is good, and some say that it will replace the OCT as the standard edition of the Iliad--but that's not quite the same thing as saying that it's an achievement comparable to General Relativity, or that it's "the most groundbreaking and researched edition", whatever that means. At any rate, if you want the article to praise West's edition and his volume on the textual transmission, we need some citations.

Regarding your last point--you may have a clue as to what you're talking about, but since you didn't explain, it took me awhile to understand that you were referring to West's forthcoming book here. Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I'm deleting the reference to this book, and the forthcoming festschrift. West's book will probably occur on schedule, but I've seen plenty of books get delayed or cancelled after the press has announced them, so it's better to wait until the book is actually put out. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask it beforehand, because this is evidently interfering in this discussion. Do you have any formal education in classical languages whatsoever? I have read the reviews as they came out. West published obliterating responses to all of them at the BMCR itself. Granted, Nagy did somewhat respond with his Homeric Questions and Homeric Responses, but this is providential until he publishes his much-awaited, if not mythical, edition of the Iliad. Those reviews, as badly beaten as I think they've been, cannot be taken as good arguments for your belief (I doubt that many classicists would agree with it) for they are extremely biased. Nagy has set many years ago to make, himself, an abrasive edition of Homer, following Aristarchus (or his interpretation of Aristharcus) and the american Oralist tradition which he himself has tried to continue. West has tried to go somewhat out of the oralist framework and to follow the steps of Dydimus. The whole deal is half battle of egos, half theoretical clash. Nardelli follows more or less the same path, read West on both. But there are still objective facts backing my claim: this is not just some good edition, but a huge enterprise. West is using tons of first-hand material which has surfaced recently, manuscripts and whatnot. That it is monumental and bizarrely erudite, I can only point to the study volume that followed it, and the edition itself. If you can't see that, I really can't do much arguing. That it's groundbreaking would need much technical detail as to his investigations on the transmission of the text, but, again, I point to the fact that he used a wealth of inedit material. Those are objective facts, and do not need a consensus of scholars, even though you could only point to two or three half-baked reviews previously answered by the reviewee; plus, as I remember none of the reviewers was mad enough to attack his Iliad for any lack of learnedness or magisterial research. Of course that would all be hard to source inside the article, but I'll try my best. Not without complaining, though. I believe you and a former editor are being far, far, too geeky with this article. There may or may not be an agenda behind this, but it's seriously turning into that proverbial joke: ''Good morning!*

• According to the Weather Channel.

And, no one compared it to General Relativity. I just wanted to show that calling it an ambitious edition is the same as calling GR an ambitious theory, that is, it's a pleonasm. The edition is as ambitious as the state of current scholarship could allow it to be. Quite simple. I just want to make clear that this is article is not about some hack or average scholar. He *is* probably the most accomplished greek scholar alive, if not overall, in several areas, and I would bet my arm and two legs that people like Walter Burker K.J. Dover and several dons would be the first to tell you. Not to mention that the Balzan laudation is inside the article for anyone to read, and it's quite accurate, if you ask me. So, forgive me for any impatience, but it's like going into a Pelé article and treating him like he's the dude waiting to play on the bench of your soccer team.

201.19.210.112 02:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No one's denying that West is an accomplished scholar. I agree that he is one of the most accomplished Hellenists alive. However, I also think that policies like WP:V are fairly important, and that if the article were to say that West's edition is "ambitious" or "groundbreaking" without a citation, it would be no more reliable than if we wrote "OMG West's is the best edition EVAR". There's also a matter of tone--as WP:PEACOCK implies, statements like "Martin West is an accomplished Greek scholar" aren't terribly compelling or convincing. Pelé, on the other hand, does a good job of establishing in the first paragraph how great he was, by noting the praise/awards he got from other people. As you note, the quote for the Balzan award praises West quite well, and quoting it at the beginning of the article might be the best way to illustrate that "this article is not about some hack or average scholar." --Akhilleus (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)