Talk:Pliny the Younger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article is on a subject of -importance within classical antiquity. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page. |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Rewrite
Re: the rewrite of 20th April - the previous article had become a bit of a hodge-podge of facts without much structure, and undue emphasis had been placed on the Vesuvian eruption and Pliny's (one letter) dealing with Christianity. I used the OCD and Penguin edition of Pliny's letters (the intro is excellent) to verify and add to this article, hopefully ending up with a more balanced account. Please let me know if you feel there are any problems with this. fluoronaut 11:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Christians
I added a paragraph on the letter involving the Christians. Historians generally regard them as what set the Roman Empire's policy toward Christians for the rest of the pagan period, so it deserves some attention. --LawrenceTrevallion 01:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vesuvius account
While I do think it is an interesting fact, worth mentioning in the article, should his account of Vesuvius' eruption be listed in the Career section? LawrenceTrevallion 01:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, and no idea why it's there since it is already mentioned further down the page. I have removed it. fluoronaut 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Father's name
This page: [1] seems to confirm the name of Pliny's father as Lucius Caecilius. Can't find a citation anywhere on the web for Rufus. fluoronaut 13:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pliny the Elder
I have added some details about his uncle which broaden the appeal of this article (I have also added the younger's comments about his uncle to the Pliny the Elder article. Peterlewis (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- This data doesn't appear to be very relevant to Pliny the Younger, since it doesn't refer to him. Surely it would be better placed in the article about his uncle, since it's about his uncle's library. And ditto with any data in the Pliny the Elder article about Pliny the Younger. fluoronaut (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Pliny the Younger's comments about his uncle are I think very relevant to his own attitudes and philosophy. Indeed, many academics remember the Younger for these comments. Peterlewis (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think Pliny the Younger is remembered by academics for a great deal more than his comments about his uncle. Nevertheless, this would certainly be a relevant point to include in the article, but the section which has been inserted is purely referring to his uncle's library, with no reference made to its relevance to Pliny the Younger, nor with any footnote. I really cannot see how it is pertinent. fluoronaut (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It depends on what academics one means. Jo Public will probably only ever have heard of him (if at all) in relation to Vesuvius and his uncle. It is highly pertinent because the younger inherited his uncle's library, and promoted his memory through his letters. I speak as one who has published many articles on the Elder Pliny, and an editor of the articles on him. They are both much neglected, and both wiki articles need much improvement to bring them into the 21st century. Peterlewis (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I assumed by academics you meant those who study both Plinies, or aspects of their legacy. The point I am making is that the information added into the article as it stands has not been made relevant to the existing text, nor has any supporting reference which, as a publisher of articles, I am sure you will appreciate the need for. I suggest you rewrite the surrounding text to integrate the information you see as relevant more appropriately and make its pertinence to the Younger Pliny apparent. As it is, it simply does not have any bearing on the immediate topic. fluoronaut (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- It depends on what academics one means. Jo Public will probably only ever have heard of him (if at all) in relation to Vesuvius and his uncle. It is highly pertinent because the younger inherited his uncle's library, and promoted his memory through his letters. I speak as one who has published many articles on the Elder Pliny, and an editor of the articles on him. They are both much neglected, and both wiki articles need much improvement to bring them into the 21st century. Peterlewis (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think Pliny the Younger is remembered by academics for a great deal more than his comments about his uncle. Nevertheless, this would certainly be a relevant point to include in the article, but the section which has been inserted is purely referring to his uncle's library, with no reference made to its relevance to Pliny the Younger, nor with any footnote. I really cannot see how it is pertinent. fluoronaut (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Pliny the Younger's comments about his uncle are I think very relevant to his own attitudes and philosophy. Indeed, many academics remember the Younger for these comments. Peterlewis (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- This data doesn't appear to be very relevant to Pliny the Younger, since it doesn't refer to him. Surely it would be better placed in the article about his uncle, since it's about his uncle's library. And ditto with any data in the Pliny the Elder article about Pliny the Younger. fluoronaut (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The supporting references are his texts from his letters. To say otherwise is being unnecessarily pedantic. The footnote system is widely abused in Wikipedia, such as in some of the classics articles, where refs to original text often pull up the Latin text (rather than an English translation), leaving the reader totally bemused. Peterlewis (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Peter, genuinely, I really recommend that you read (or re-read) the Wikipedia guidelines on content in articles. The information that you're adding and the way you're adding it seems to go against many of Wikipedia's principles. While you (and I) may not agree with all of these, they provide a very useful framework in which contributors can work. I particularly draw your attention to this section in the Guide to Writing Better Articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Stay_on_topic) and this page on citing sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources). fluoronaut (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the copious cited footnotes in Pliny the Elder, you will see that the majority are to Latin texts. Are you seriously arguing that readers will be able to cope with them? There are ample references cited as books or other articles from which readers can gain all the information they need. In many other articles I have edited, the footnotes cite newspaper articles or magazine texts. This is hardly a worthwhile policy if so used. Guidelines are just that, guidelines and not rigid rules. Both Pliny articles need bringing forward from 1911 into 2008 with relevant quotes and references to recent work so as to introduce readers to the wealthof new material on both of these authors. Peterlewis (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- In some cases I can see why the lack of availability to English translations might mean that Latin references are made. I do not know what Wikipedia's guidelines are on this, but I'm sure there will be an article somewhere if you search for it. I also had a look at the featured article page which is linked to from Wikipedia's front page and discovered that there is a series of useful information pages here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria which should clarify some points. You're right about guidelines not being set in stone of course, but do consider that to make an article one of the best on Wikipedia most of those guidelines will have to be seen to be adhered to. In addition, other users are liable to revert or edit your text heavily to fit them in with the guidelines. And certainly more up-to-date information should be used where possible, but earlier scholarship should also be represented in any balanced article. References to specific points in the text are crucial (for example, I notice that you have not inserted a citation for the English translation of the letter referring to the Vesuvian eruption.) The above are all basic tenets of the art of writing Wikipedia articles. fluoronaut (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Volcanic eruption
I have added a block quote from Pliny's letters because it is directly relevant to the eruption of Vesuvius and of great interest given that most historians have dismissed his evidence. Like some of his uncle's writings, research has confirmed his testimony. There is also great public interest in the subject after the BBC's " Pompeii, the Last Day". Peterlewis (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
