Talk:Quintus Curtius Rufus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

[edit] Renault

Mary Renault is a nonfiction writer on Alexander as well as a respected historical novelist; I see no reason she should not be cited as a critic of a fellow writer. If you have another source with a contrasting opinion, feel free to cite their views. Nareek 20:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not move an inch on this; I have no intention to let half of the article be occupied by a novelist's footnote concerning some occasional remarks involving a marginal figure of the book. I don't remember Britannica citing historical novelists as a source for history articles, so I don't see why we should start here. --Aldux 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to work for Britannica, I'm sure they're accepting applications. This is not Britannica, it's WP, which has its own far more inclusive and democratic standards. Statements like "I will not move an inch on this" are not a helpful way to start a discussion. Nareek 20:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aldux here - that quote is currently given a degree of prominence in the article quite out of proportion with the apparent notability of this author and her judgment. If we had a whole section comparing modern judgments of this guy, we might talk about re-inserting it, as one among others. Lukas ^(T.|@) 21:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that Renault is not the only person who should be cited as an authority on Curtius. I completely disagree that her point of view is not worth citing. The problem here is not that Renault's views have been summarized and inserted into the article, but that other more academic experts have not had their views so summarized.

Aldux, I think you need to reread WP:NPOV. The way WP works is that we include the views of those we agree with as well as those we disagree with--and that includes people we don't even think are credible. You clearly believe that only historians are competent to discuss other historians--you are completely welcome to have that opinion as your point of view. What you do not have the right to do is impose that POV on the encyclopedia. Look at the part in the NPOV policy about pseudoscience--if astronomers have to put up with the idea of astrology being included in WP, then you have to accept the fact that some people think that sometimes historical novelists have notable insights into history--absurd as you may find the idea. Nareek 13:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't read Lukas' comment you agree so much very well; he said "that quote is currently given a degree of prominence in the article quite out of proportion with the apparent notability of this author and her judgment. If we had a whole section comparing modern judgments of this guy, we might talk about re-inserting it, as one among others." Even if Renault was an academic wouldn't change anything; this article isn't on Bagoas, but on Curtius and his book, dominated by Alexander, where Bagoas has a very minor space. --Aldux 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my note, the problem is not with what's here but with what's not here. Add in the sources that you think have valid judgments on Curtius--don't eliminate the beginnings of a well-rounded article. WP would never get anywhere that way.

Renault has written a well-regarded biography of Alexander, as well as three acclaimed novels about him--only one of which centers on Bagoas. There is plentiful reason to consider her judgment on Curtius to be informed--whether or not you think her credentials merit respect. Nareek 14:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)