This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Most of the information provided in this article is either wrong or misleading. The main form of the toponym is not attested in any ancient literary source; there is no evidence suggesting the location was a "town"; there is no evidence supporting the identification with Vlochos, etc. The only source mentioning Limnaeum is Livy, who only states that it was a location in Thessaly. It cannot be identified with any known location, and it should not be referred to as Limnaea (which is a location in Acarnarnia). Ronnlund (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have cited the wrong source, and are confusing age with reliability; you cannot infer unreliability from the age of the source, which in this case is presumptively reliable unless a mistake can be shown to have been made. This has not been done. Nor is the activity of this article's original author relevant.
The original article is from the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and that in turn cites two sources, one of which, Livy, describes the necessity of storming Limnaeum at a particular time—something that would only make sense if it were in fact a town. The DGRG has an article on Limnaea in Acarnania (not "Acarnarnia") immediately preceding the brief entry on Limnaea in Thessaly; so there does not appear to be any confusion as alleged. The identification of the location in Thessaly with modern Vlochos is cited to two sources that you have not addressed, one of which, the Barrington Atlas is widely known and a reliable source.
As a result, we have more than enough to show that there was a populated place of this name in Thessaly, which had to be taken by storm—we can presume geographic notability, and I can see no other reason why the article should be deleted; uncertainty as to the correct form of the name or its precise location does not affect its notability. Deprodding. P Aculeius (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading that Livy's account could be a reference to a city or town is an interesting argument and possibly correct, but it is just that: a reading of an ancient source, not a (primary or secondary) source in itself. Articles on Wikipedia should cite published and reliable information, not the inference by editors.
There is no published evidence supporting Limnaeum having been a "populated place", nor can any claim to geographical position be substantiated. This is a matter of empty and erroneous citations, which to a large extent exemplifies that the main sources of this article are not reliable.
The DGRG cites only one ancient source, Livy (which is the only ancient source). The other reference is to W. Leake (who is not a primary source, never visited the location, and who is clearly guessing here: "Kortíkhi I believe to have been a town named Limnæa, for Livy shows Limnæa to have been in this part of Thessaly", p. 512), who in turn has Livy as his only source. Empty citation.
Livy only has the form 'Limnaeum', and never *Limnaea (a form which is not attested anywhere). 'Limnaea' is probably a mistake by Leake (mechanically reproduced in the DGRG but never in any other work since). Leake and the DGRG further do not put *Limnaea at Vlochos, but at Metamorfosi (previously named Kourtiki), a claim which — together with the statement that the "town" was located in Hestiaiotis — is not substantiated. Many of Leake's identifications have been proven erroneous over the nearly 200 years since his book was published through epigraphic discoveries, and they should not be mechanically reproduced, either directly or indirectly.
The Barrington Atlas is a largely outdated volume containing obsolete and imprecise information, especially for Thessaly and the Greek mainland. It often erroneously reproduces information which was already outdated in 2000, and it suffers much from a lack of non-English language sources (it largely ignores Greek-language research). However, in this case, its map section (p. 55) and directory notes (p. 826) notably do not put Limnaeum as a settlement, and has the PECS (s.v. Limnaion) as its sole reference. This latter volume (which is also outdated and generally unreliable) also has Livy as its sole primary source, and further regards the location as a "place" and not a settlement ("presumably a temporary refuge in time of war or flood without continuous occupation", a claim which is not substantiated). PECS in turn does not put Limnaeum at Vlochos (as the Atlas claims that it does; an example of it being unreliable), but at "Petromagoulo" (sic., = Petromagoula, yet a third location between Metamorfosi and Klokotos, which is not "a rocky hill [...] rising 250 m above the marshy plain" nor situated on the northern bank of a non-existent river "Karditsis", as PECS claims it to be), probably from the off-hand guess by Friedrich Stählin (Hellenische Thessalien, p. 83–84), who never visited the location. Finally, PECS cites Edmonds ('Some Doubtful Points of Thessalian Topography', p. 23) who puts Limnaeum at Metamorfosi (and not at Petromagoula), and regards it as having been not a settlement but a fortification. Edmonds presents no evidence supporting his claim, and the only stated source is — again — Livy. Empty and erroneous citations.
Overall, the only information from any substantial source is Livy's mention of a location Limnaeum (never Limnaea) somewhere in Thessaly (never given as Hestiaiotis or elsewhere). Contrary to other locations in Thessaly, Livy does not specify that it was a settlement (urbs, oppidum), but merely a place which was taken by force in the early 2nd century BCE. If this — under a correct title — is enough for a stub, fine, but only relevant and reliable information should in my meaning be cited, also on Wikipedia.
(Further, the present article does not cite J.-C. Decourt's important La Vallée de l'Énipeus, which has a long discussion on the location of Limnaeum (p. 120–121; 159–163). Decourt puts Limnaeum at Vlochos, but again without substantiating the claim nor with any other source than Livy. Decourt should be cited by anyone claiming Limnaeum was a settlement at Vlochos, but that would be yet another reference to an unsubstantiated claim (and also an empty citation).) Ronnlund (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interpreting Livy, I'm reporting what the source cited for the claim says—"a town of Histiaeotis in Thessaly"—although I fail to see how you can interpret Livy as saying anything else. A place listed amongst other towns taken by the Romans by storm can hardly be anything other than a town. That Livy is the "only ancient source cited" is not relevant—the question is whether there are reliable sources, not how many of them are ancient.
Your interpretation of what Leake says is simply your opinion that he had no reason for his identification other than Livy mentioning a place of this name in Thessaly, but you do not know whether he had any other grounds for his identification, if he does not give further details. What we have is a scholarly source that makes an identification, and another source that reports what he says. Your assumption that Leake had no other reasoning behind his identification is not evidence; all that we know is that he did not explain further.
Your opinion that the Barrington Atlas (2000) is outdated and unreliable is just that: your opinion, as is your interpretation that whatever it says can be disregarded because you believe it comes only from a source that you claim contains other errors and therefore can be disregarded. A clear pattern is developing here: you do not know the full extent of the reasoning given by the authors of any of the sources, because they do not provide an exhaustive explanation; therefore you argue that there was no reason and therefore the sources are all making things up out of thin air.
I can't fathom why you would use "there's another source you could cite, but it's also wrong" as an argument for deletion. But in the end, you cannot simply go around finding faults with every source in order to justify excluding them, just so that you can argue that there are no sources and therefore the article should be deleted. The whole argument would be original research, unlike the sources you're arguing with.
There simply is not a good reason to delete this article. It may be short, it may be uncertain, but what it says is cited to several reliable sources, and if you can find any reliable sources that argue with what they say you are welcome to add what they say and cite them—but that is not an argument for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
