Jump to content

Talk:Herostratus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biography assessment rating comment

[edit]

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. -- Yamara 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

AN IMPORTANT APPEAL TO HISTORIANS: That man, whose name I purpously omit, destroyed that most beautiful building solely to become famous. Appropriately, his court's sentence declared that his name should be forgotten and never-ever mentioned. We owe them this loyalty: Let us erase his name from Wikipedia and history books. In our times many people do horrible things because they cannot stand being un-noticed by the public. The proper penalty, among others, should be silence and application to such vandals etc. a form of the Google's "Right to be Forgotten".


<! Modern day Herostratus are usualy pop and film stars becouse they consciously sing shity songs and act in shity films just to be famous. Even persons who take part in the Jerry Springer show could be considered as Herostratus becouse they would beat their best friend yust to be on TV and achieve tehir fifteen minutes of fame.

Marin Tomic -->


Brian Chase (of Siegenthalergate fame) received a wikipedia article for his misdeed of vandalizing wikipedia. The irony parallels Herostratus's "immortality" via an assault on a deity's shrine quite nicely.

I'm don't agree with the Brian Chase reference. Herostratus requires committing the act for the purposes of fame, Brian Chase committed the act for purposes of a joke.Aluchko 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I was the one who wrote that Mark David Chapman could be considered a modern Herostratus. He has been quoted as saying he killed Lennon and "I want to be important," Chapman later said of his mind-set before the murder. "I want to be somebody. I was never anybody." Hitokirishinji

What a pity, that Herostratus dilemma is a false dichotomy, as one can both be good AND achieve something, which requires still more power of will, consequently the achievement is much greater. --matusz 02:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Was the guy's actual name really "Herostratus", or is it the name he was given since they had to refer to him as something? --maru (talk) contribs 22:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our knowledge of his name apparently comes from the Greek writer Strabo, who was born almost three centuries later. He came from Pontus, which like Ephesus is in Asia Minor. Later mentions are found in Plutarch's Life of Alexander and in Valerius Maximus's Facta et Dicta Memorabilia, both published later in the first century C.E. John Lemprière's Classical Dictionary links "Herostratus" to "Erostratus" and "Eratostratus," and has its main entry under the last form. NRPanikker 02:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deny Recognition to Vandals!

[edit]

Shouldn't this article be deleted by WP:DENY? =) Borisblue 03:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I guess you could make that stretch. But then, a paradox: this is an article, but anything to be deleted by WP:DENY goes to MfD... aaaaah! What to do?! -- Kicking222 15:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[*incivility removed*] WP:DENY doesn't apply to the mainspace. 210.50.97.114 08:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Must concede, was tempted to nuke the article and replace it with just This Page Intentionally Left Blank.81.157.27.107 (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention having the page is a clear violation of Turkish law! ;) Superm401 - Talk 22:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was so tempted to blackout his name here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.14.3 (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is to present history as it is, and as nearly as possible as it reflects its times, not to make or unmake it, least of all because of a superstitious concern for superstitious views of men millennia dead, and to whom we owe no responsibility to lie or obscure the record. Does anyone here concerned fear the wrath of Artemis? Or believe that the shade of Herostratus is breathing down our necks in personal gratification as we record his name and deeds? JonRichfield (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wikipedia vandals cannot even dream of the notability of Herostratus. Being the first clearly counts for something. And it should give wiki vandals pause who think of themselves as witty and original that the original vandal was executed more than 2370 years ago. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the pop-group section

[edit]

I do not see how this could be important enough for this article. I mean, a referance to Sartre is one thing, a marginally famous pop-group something else. I suggest this part gone. Greswik 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burned a marble temple?

[edit]

How could he burn it? Does marble burn? 0xFFFF 10:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything burns. Reinistalk 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was probably a lot of flammable art and some wooden structures. The temple was rebuilt a few decades after Herostratu burnt it. Seano1 (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you put some sourced info about this into the article? I think it would help, as it currently sounds like he burned the marble. 218.250.8.252 (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article suggests that if the fire gets hot enough it can cause the stone to crack and crumble, destroying its structural integrity. If it's a load-bearing pillar, that also affects everything above it. Dousing the stone with vinegar would accelerate the process, not that I expect that happened here. Still, yes you can destroy marble temples with fire. --76.217.116.74 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd been aksing the same krestion. Maybe someone who knows about such things more than I could add some of the responses to the article.... PurpleChez (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so what this guy does is basically the ancient greek equivalent of creating a Wikipedia vanity page and he gets an entry anyway? That's against all sorts of Wikipedia policies, surely? Otherwise there's nothing stopping us ALL from having entries about us. -88.109.13.182 10:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Wikipedia vanity pages don't inspire movies, lend their names to words in multiple languages, or figure in classical literature. At least, not yet they don't. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was he remembered?

[edit]

This article says Herostratos is know today because of Theopompus, while Temple of Artemis says it is because of Strabo. Which is more accurate? Haakon (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure (someone should check in books I don't have!), but Strabo lived several centuries later. Logically, Herostratus must have been written about during the lifetimes of people who overlapped his life (like Theopompus). Otherwise, no one would have remembered him by the time Strabo was born. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Ephesians could have banned speaking or writing Herostratus's name in their own city, to avoid copy-cat crime, but an event like burning down the Temple of Artemis would have become known by word of mouth throughout the Greek world. Once the fire became incorporated into the myth of Alexander's divinity (Artemis being unable to protect her temple because she was in attendance at his birth) any attempts by the authorities in the new empire to suppress the details would have ceased. NRPanikker (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone - like Theopompus - specifically record his name? The Ephesians' reasoning seems sound to me. Why balk it? --Gwern (contribs) 01:07 22 February 2010 (GMT)
Because it was part of history, presumably. Who knows? Hard to speculate on the motives of people about whom so little is known. 165.91.173.228 (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted references to both sources. I have sought hard copy claims that the names of his judges have been forgotten (Asimov?) Can't find where I once read it, and would appreciate assistance. I have however included what Sir Thomas Browne said on a related point. JonRichfield (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Existence

[edit]

Is there any actual evidence that he existed, other than anecdotal mentions?—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His existence isn't much different from that of thousands of others mentioned in Greek literature who never left an inscription or minted a coin. It doesn't matter much to the issue of "Herostratic fame" anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right! JonRichfield (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do exist. Ask my wife. Herostratus (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Herostratus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.--InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of ineffectivness

[edit]

Wouldn't the sentence "The law was ultimately ineffective, as evidenced by mentions of his existence in modern works and parlance." have a bit more punch if it would be phrased "The law was ultimately ineffective, as evidenced by this article."? 2001:16B8:6F73:6D00:BD14:154C:268F:901C (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)n[reply]

It would be more narcissistic. AnonMoos (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a bit funny, but I'm sure our discerning readers can put that much together themselves, and is there not more humour in an observation one completes on one's own? Besides, we try to avoid self-reference, and there are tone issues with saying it like that. CharredShorthand (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the subject of the article so let me chime in. We could combine it an have "The law was ultimately ineffective, as evidenced by mentions of his existence in modern works and parlance, such as this article". I mean the Wikipedia is a big website. If I was writing for say Vice or Huffpost or whatever, I wouldn't hesitate to say "The law was ultimately ineffective, as evidenced by mentions of his existence in modern works and parlance, such as his article in the Wikipedia" or what have you. We could say it that way also, if we want to work at a bit more of a distance. OTOH it seems a bit stilted to have to say "his article in the Wikipedia" rather than "this article" since the person is actually reading the article. Or maybe not -- she may be reading it in a downstream publication (but even so "this article" would probably be accurate, unless the article was being quoted in another work, or something). We don't have to bend over backwards to pretend that the English Wikipedia doesn't exist, or is not an important publication anyway. I don't much care as long as my name is kept in the public eye, I worked hard for that. Herostratus (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that it's also a sourcing issue; that there are surviving accounts is established by any of the numerous references, but none of those sources mention the English Wikipedia in particular.
While you're here, do you ever feel remorse for burning down that temple? CharredShorthand (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do. The truth is, I did it to impress a girl, and she wasn't impressed. Anyway, the Wikipedia article is a surviving account. Contemporary or ancient accounts cannot support the statement "The law was ultimately ineffective" because they don't know. They have nothing useful to say about whether or not I would still be famous in the 17th century or 21st, n'est-ce pa? Even 19th century works can't know if the law continued to be ineffective into the 21st century.
Wikipedia articles may or may not be accurate, but they are notable which is what counts here. If you google my name... [shuffle, shuffle]... this article comes up first. You could say ""The law was ultimately ineffective, as evidenced by mentions of his existence in modern works and parlance, such as such-and-such article in The Atlantic" or whatever, but why not use the most prominent current source? We don't need to go out of way to avoid using the most prominent source. Herostratus (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herostratus&oldid=1194750698"