Talk:Oxyrhynchus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oxyrhynchus article.
Article policies
Former featured article Oxyrhynchus is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 25, 2004.
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Ambiguity?

The article states: "The name derived from a species of fish common in the river, which was worshipped by the Egyptians." Was it the species of fish or the river (or both) that was worshipped?

[edit] New Classics

Let me know when the Newly discovered Classics are available to the reading public, whether in Ancient Greek or in translation. Alexander 007 09:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • They would probably hold the rights to the translation, but if someone here could translate the original greek (if they release it), that would be nice. They're supposed to publish all the new stuff they've found next month. --brian0918™ 09:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As has been mentioned on arstechnica, this story seems a little odd (or over enthusistic). Has anyone actually found out what the 'breakthrough' does that will suddenly make all these lost books available?. Some more fragments perhaps but apart from that...? Wombat 02:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be a scanning technique that detects traces of ink in papyri where the ink is not longer visible to the naked eye, thus making the text legible. Adam 03:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • But that is not new technology is it? (multi-spectral imaging). I remember reading about it a while ago, as they were using it for the Herculaneum papyri. And as the post on Arstechnica points out it seems very odd that they are going to publish within a month. Things seem to usually move at a snails pace in archeology... Wombat 04:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that part of the report. Oxford University and the Egyptian Exploration Society retain control of the manuscripts and will determine what gets published and when. The editing and publishing process typically takes several years. Adam 05:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's an audio interview with the guy behind the story - professor Dirk Obbink from Oxford University - on the NPR web site. It's not all that helpful, he's basically repeating everything we know about Oxyrhynchus papiri. From his talk I got the impression that either they've just started using multispectral imaging and it's giving great results ( because large part of the collection is illegible by conventional means ), or they've accidentally stumbled upon some works of classical authors - he goes on for half a minute describing the poem of Archilochus they've just discovered. --Itinerant1 07:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • There is a more useful post here from Dr. Obbink to the PAPY list (courtesy RobotWisdom). The article seems to be half-right. -- Wombat 02:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

When the next volume is published next month (as it says in Wombat's link), I wonder if portions will be available on the net. I don't think Oxford should even hold copyrights over the ancient Greek material (if they do). Translations though are another matter. Alexander 007 06:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FARC

This page is listed on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. One glaring omission is the absence of references, which is now a requirement for featured articles. Please would contributors consider whether there are any references that they could add. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the original version, based on this website, encyclopaedias and my general knowledge. Adam 12:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Featured article review of November 2005

This review resulted in the passing of a new version of the article, which is now designated a featured article of concern due to lack of adequate referencing.

Promoted March 4, 2004. Appears to have been more or less completely rewritten. Changes appear to have been entirely positive, though this was apparently promoted before an explicit references section was considered required. I'd like to request a references section before supporting this review. Tuf-Kat 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Ditto the above. Here's the original version of the article. PacknCanes | say something! 04:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the refernces will be jumbled in the external link section - but I agree that the references should be made explicit.--nixie 04:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References?

Has anyone taken a look at the references section recently? Of note, the first and sixth links don't seem to be working and they don't use Template:Cite web to document them. Axem Titanium 00:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excavations completed

I seem to remember reading that the dumps have been completely excavated. Is that correct? Haiduc 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deadlinks

The BBC links at the bottom were dead, I zapped them instead of looking harder for them. 24.62.5.179 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

I have listed this article for FA review. Chubbles 09:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible rename?

This article really doesn't deal with Oxyrhynchus. I think it may make sense to rename this article Oxyrhynchus Papyri, seeing as that article is just a lead and a redundant list and deals exclusively with NT papyri (when the vast majority of P. Oxy.s are not NT texts). What do others think about the title of this article? Does the content fit the title?-Andrew c 04:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gospel of Thomas fragments

The article currently states "Reports of fragments of the Gospel of Thomas, also known as the Sayings of Jesus, appearing on P1654 are spurious." There are two fragments now recognised as from GoT; the claim entered by User:70.246.19.207 03:37, 3 January 2006, that P1654 is spurious (from which the given source http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/papyri/tocframe.htm has been deleted) might not belong in the article, where no such claim is noticed. I'm deleting this. --Wetman (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)