Talk:Alcaeus

Throwing away his shield

"According to the historian Herodotus,[7] the poet threw away his shield to make good his escape from the victorious Athenians then celebrated the occasion in a poem that he later sent to his friend, Melanippus."

Is Herodotus just being literal minded here (and the article after him)? I had understood that Alcaeus was primarily imitating Archilochus fragment five. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.196.162.186 (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Campbell (1982, Sappho and Alcaeus) comments on Alcaeus 428 LP = 401 Voigt that as well as Archilochus, Anacreon and Horace both wrote about throwing away their shields, and a quick search finds mentions that throwing away one's shield was a topos of ancient lyric (e.g. Seidensticker 1978, "Archilochus and Odysseus"; Brown 1983, "From Rags to Riches"). Podlecki 1969, "Three Greek Soldier-Poets" explicitly says that Alcaeus 'paid his predecessor the compliment of imitating his "Shield Poem"'. The conclusion that Alcaeus fought at Sigeum still seems to be mainstream, though; Campbell's introduction to the Loeb Sappho and Alcaeus and Chris Carey's entry on Alcaeus for the OCD both discuss it as though it's uncontroversially true. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

---

• Alcaeus of Mytilene → Alcaeus
• Alcaeus → Alcaeus (disambiguation)

– The Greek lyric poet Alcaeus is the clear primary topic in both likely usage (WP:PT1) and longterm significance (WP:PT2).

Likely Usage: There is really no debate that the lyric poet considerably dwarfs the others in page views. He is competing with comparatively niche cultural and mythological personalities; it is telling that all of the other Nine Lyric Poets are named monogamously on Wikipedia (although Simonides of Ceos is not, the name Simonides redirects there regardless). “Alcaeus of Mytilene” is simply not the common name for the lyric poet.

Longterm significance: Alcaeus the lyric poet has been canonized in ancient literature, with an oeuvre described as “highly esteemed in the ancient world” ([1]), and an entire lyrical meter named after him (the Alcaic stanza). He is the subject of repeated monographs and studies; the other Alcaeus personages receive no where near this much attention.

The previous move request spurred into a tangential analysis of how Alcaeus is presented in classical scholarship. The sources consulted were Brill's New Pauly and the 200 year-old Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology; both do not list the the lyric poet first. Since this is blatant cherrypicking, I’ll have a go myself: the 2014 Oxford Classical Dictionary, more comprehensive and up-to-date than both, lists the lyric poet first. In any case, Wikipedia is not a classical encyclopedia, it is a general encyclopedia. Other general encyclopedias simply call him "Alcaeus" (see Britannica and Oxford Reference) – Aza24 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Support: my point raising Brill's New Pauly in the previous discussion was that it disambiguates him solely as "lyric poet", while the others required a geographic disambiguator. This seemed to me to indicate that he's the primary topic (the order of BNP entries is purely chronological and therefore not an indication of primacy). Furius (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Support: clearly primary usage of Alcaeus. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Still not convinced: there remain a fair number of persons by this name, and the others are not insignificant, although their page views are. However, the pageviews analysis is less convincing if it's restricted to the last four years, instead of going back to 2015; an average of 44 daily views for "Alcaeus (mythology)" as compared to 58 for "Alcaeus of Mytilene".

The argument for consulting specialist literature was always that it was more likely to give an indication of how all the possible topics were treated when together; generalist works such as the OCD will frequently omit all but the most important. That's not "cherry picking", that's a relevant perspective, and calling it "blatant" and "tangential" isn't an excuse to disregard it (and it's a little insulting), nor does the fact that the latest edition of the OCD was printed in 2014—we're talking about figures from classical antiquity and mythology, so whether a reference was printed in 1850, 1975, or 2014 is not particularly relevant (on the other hand, I'm delighted to learn that it's now 2049, so I'm going to go out to my flying car when I get done here). The rhetoric is particularly thick this morning, but nothing has changed since 2017, except that the pageviews analysis is less favorable toward the move now than it was then. P Aculeius (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And so far this year, Alcaeus of Mytilene has averaged 63 views per day compared to 46 for Alcaeus (mythology), which is 55% of views for all of the Alcaeuses, and more dominant than looking over the past four years – we might argue on that basis that he is becoming more primary again! (And remember, Alcaeus (mythology) covers five different mythological figures: it isn't an article on a single figure like the others are...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

My rationale seems to have struck a nerve so I genuinely apologize if that is the case. Wikipedia is not a specialist encyclopedia, and although I sympathize with that argument, it really has no sway over our naming practices. Surely you must see that to any outsider, putting so much emphasis on two seemingly randomly chosen sources makes little sense.

I'm a little struck by your insistence that a 4–5 year difference in page views is so telling, but a 200 year (sorry, 175) difference is not. The GRBM was written before the Oxyrhynchus Papyri were even discovered, which our article says "dramatically increased the scope of scholarly research". So surely, publication years matter more than you're crediting them. The point is, that the lyric poet has an overwhelming long-term significance, and that is not represented by the current naming practices. Aza24 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the point of relitigating primary topics every time one person garners a slight majority of pageviews. The name "Alcaeus" can refer to a lot of different persons, so disambiguation is just practical. The need to elevate one person above the rest on the grounds that he's "the most important" seems like an exercise in vanity.

In reply to Aza24, major encyclopedias on classical topics are precisely what is called for in a discussion of this sort; they are not randomly chosen, but chosen because they illustrate the point: that there are a great many topics under this name. You can't dismiss that fact on the grounds that sources that don't acknowledge that "Wikipedia isn't a specialist encyclopedia"—in fact, it's neither generalist nor specialist, but universal, in the sense that it can and does treat topics small and large in whatever level of detail editors are willing and able to produce. The fact that articles aren't written in dense academic prose doesn't mean that specialist sources can't or shouldn't be cited in a topic or a discussion as to what a topic should be called; that argument is a red herring. So are the Oxyrhinchus Papyri, which are barely discussed here—all we know is that they contain eight fragments, all containing considerable gaps, and that one of them as interpreted by a modern scholar refers to St. Elmo's Fire. That doesn't exactly sound like a revolution in our understanding of Alcaeus of Mytilene.

Yes, Alcaeus of Mytilene has long-term significance, but so do all of the other persons by the name; long-term significance is a much weaker argument than page views when it comes to multiple figures from the same period of time, all of whom remain subjects of interest—even minor interest—today. And the page views argument is not overwhelming. Reasonable people could differ as to whether a slight majority justifies making one primary; but this article has been under this title since 2005—nearly twenty years—so in my opinion there ought to be more reason to move it than that it accounts for a little more than half the page views. P Aculeius (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"major encyclopedias on classical topics are precisely what is called for in a discussion of this sort". Ok, then:

• Oxford Classical Dictionary: "Alcaeus(1), lyric poet" [2]
• Brill's New Pauly: "Alcaeus (4), Lyric poet" [3]
• Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1873): "Alcaeus of Mytilene" [4]
• Britannica: "Alcaeus, Greek poet" [5]
• Sacks, Murray, Brody, Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World (1995), pp. 17-18: "Alcaeus" [6] (no other Alcaei are included, an indication that the subject of this article is the primary topic).

So, most of them don't use "of Mytilene" either. I don't see why the DGRBM should be given priority in determining anything; it has prominence on WP because it is public domain and therefore has formed the basis of many articles, but it's long been superseded as a reference work. Furius (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You missed something rather important here: there was no new reply, and hadn't been for eight days—the only thing I did was notice that my reply eight days ago wasn't signed, so it wasn't apparent who had left it, and I corrected that! And your new argument is a straw man, since nobody proposed giving primacy to any particular source. You completely missed the point of what I said—I was replying to someone claiming that specialist literature was irrelevant because Wikipedia isn't a specialist encyclopedia. You're not rebutting what I said: your reply underscores it! In fact, by pointing out that two generalist sources don't bother to mention any other persons by the name, you're showing why they're not terribly helpful: they only provide a gloss of knowledge—the highlights, and little more.

There's nothing new here: there are several persons by this name, and more than one is important; nothing has changed since the last discussion, where it was decided that there was no primary topic for "Alcaeus". Your own comments in that discussion demonstrate why: the most comprehensive resource among the newer ones lists this one as fourth among six entries, including three poets. But the order isn't what's important: it's that there are multiple topics under the title, and it's only slightly more likely that readers want this article than one of the others. That's a strong argument for keeping it where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the point of relitigating primary topics every time one person garners a slight majority of pageviews. This is misleading. It is not as though Alcaeus of Mytilene has only just gained a slight majority of pageviews: the article was created in 2001 and as far as I can tell has always had the majority of pageviews throughout that time.

Yes, Alcaeus of Mytilene has long-term significance, but so do all of the other persons by the name; long-term significance is a much weaker argument than page views when it comes to multiple figures from the same period of time, all of whom remain subjects of interest—even minor interest—today. Does the fact that the best that can be said about the others is that they remain only of "minor interest" today not suggest that, though they have all retained what significance they had long term, Alcaeus of Mytilene's long-term significance is, well, greater? Patrick Finglass is currently preparing a new critical edition of Alcaeus of Mytilene - none of the other Alcaeuses have been the subject of scholarly monographs! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Then what has changed? Somebody else is going to publish a new edition of the same works? That's not a strong argument that an article that wasn't deemed a primary topic in 2017 is now primary in 2024. This discussion consists mainly of the same people who advocated the same thing in 2017 making the same argument merely because time has passed, in the hopes that those who opposed making this the primary topic then won't want to keep arguing the same thing every few years. Primary topics are not determined by showing that one topic is the biggest or best out of a group; the fact that there is a large number of other topics by the same title is a strong argument against making any of them primary. This topic has natural disambiguation, and that in itself is of considerable benefit to readers. I don't see how claiming the ground as a primary topic provides a significantly greater benefit. Nothing said here is new: all of the arguments had been made eight days ago. Was signing my previous unsigned reply that provocative? P Aculeius (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. It was primary in 2001 when the article was created; it was primary in 2017 when I previously proposed the move, and it is still primary today. This discussion consists mainly of the same people who advocated the same thing in 2017 making the same argument Without relitigating the 2017 discussion, I will note that the person who proposed this discussion didn't even create their account until a year after that discussion – it isn't just the same people bringing up the same points. It's someone separately observing that Alcaeus of Mytilene is primary judging by both criteria listed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Primary topics are not determined by showing that one topic is the biggest or best out of a group Actually that's exactly what primary topics are determined by. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lists two criteria: 1. being more likely than any other topic under that name to be what people are searching for (which I argued both in 2017 and this time round is demonstrated by the fact that it has consistently had an absolute majority of the Alcaeus pageviews for 20+ years) and 2. having substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic under the name (which I argue is demonstrated by the fact that people have been writing books about Alcaeus for over 2000 years, which is not true of any of the others: I do not believe that there is a single scholarly monograph about any of the other Alcaeuses, and I would expect that the academic bibliography on the Mytilenean poet is longer than on the rest of them combined). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per Brittanica using the name and other arguments. In any case every other article in that disambiguation page has some sort of qualification and there's no reason we can't have at least *one* primary topic: given it isn't any of the others, why not this one, which is the only one covered in non-specialist sources, which seems like a clear indication of higher general significance and recognition? Mrfoogles (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.