Talk:Tenedos/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Tenedos. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Ashley reliable source?
Current article includes four reverences to: Ashley, J.R. (1998). The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare under Philip II and Alexander the Great. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-7864-1918-0. I've come to the talk page to see if there is any objection to removing the Ashley references, doing a good-faith attempt to check the claims, and if no confirmation is found, removing them. This does not appear to be a reliable source for a few reasons:
- The major source for his claims about Tenedos is Curtius whose history of Alexander was analyzed by W.W. Tarn as "a mass of problems", "extraordinary carelessness", and (most damning for its use in this article) "the amateurishness is obvious; he often cares nothing whether or not he gets events in the right order, whether his geography is confused, whether he gives the wrong names...he is going to create a certain impression and he creates it." pg. 91-92 of Alexander the Great vol. II. Ashley's source is then not widely considered reliable.
- Ashley's work itself is judged similarly on its amateurishness. The only academic review mentioning the book (which itself should cause pause) that I could find was quite explicit, Professor Waldemar Heckler writes: "nor should students be encouraged to consult the error-ridden and amateurish Macedonian Empire by James R. Ashley"
- Neither Curtius nor Ashley are used in the Alexander the Great wiki-page. Curtius is referred to, but only when he is used in secondary reliable sources. Compare that with Arrian or Plutarch who are both used. Normally this doesn't matter, but with the problems above it should cause great hesitance in use.
Ashley then does not seem to be a reliable source for the claims being made (and some of the claims should probably be removed unless they are repeated in other sources that may care about getting geography right). AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- With all this explanation does not seem very reliable indeed... --E4024 (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) The criteria for what is considered a reliable source are listed at WP:RSN. None of the three points raised above have any bearing on those criteria. WW Tarn is himself highly unreliable, and online reviews should be treated with caution. Whether or not a source is used in other WP articles has no bearing on whether it should be considered reliable. My recommendation is that you seek an advisory opinion at WP:RSN. Athenean (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- For point 1, actually the preface to the book says "secondary sources form the basis of [his] book" and the author explicitly calls Curtius, Diodorus, Arrian and Justin filled with "exaggerations, inconsistencies and omissions." Plutarch is a primary source to be treated with caution, irrespective of what other WP articles include. I am not able to find much on James R. Ashley (and it doesn't seem like Heckel is particularly notable, but that nobody notable has commented on the book could be a minus); I see other books citing him, those books seem credible, but I don't know what they are citing; you might want to check Wikiproject History or Military History; they are likely more active, and I think this evaluation needs subject expertise. Churn and change (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Responding to all, I'll take this to wherever you all think will decide this appropriately. To correct some problems: 1. I did not use an online review, I used an academic journal review that mentions Ashley's book as amateurish. 2. Heckel is reputable. He's written or translated 10 books on Alexander the Great (through Cambridge and Oxford university presses by the way), including that he wrote the introduction to the main English translation of Curtius. 3. I have Ashley's book in front of me (the 2004 volume), it is great that he says stuff in the Preface about sources used, but if you actually go to the endnotes for his claims about Tenedos they are all to Curtius. Other claims in the book link to other sources, as WP:RS makes clear, it is the context of the claims that matter. 4. Tarn's opinion of Curtius' accuracy is generally held, I just liked Tarn's phrasing: "Curtius is unreliable as a geographer and a historian; especially his rhetorical description of battles is misleading" (Michael van Albrecht, A History of Roman Literature), Cummings history of Alexander the Great calls Curtius "utterly unreliable"), Kenney's Cambridge History of Classical History (some phrases: "his geography is deplorable", his "irresponsibility and nonchalance are demonstrated repeatedly by inaccuracies, contradictions, implausible fabrication of detail...and above all freely confessed willingness to mislead"). 5. Sorry if it wasn't clear how I think Ashley isn't a reputable source. To be clear, Ashley (and his source Curtius for points about Tenedos) appear to have a "a poor reputation for checking the facts" (quote from Questionable Sources on WP:RS). Regardless of all this, I'll take these as objections and of course take it elsewhere. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Heckel is actually disagreeing with James Romm who seems to have encouraged students to consult Ashley's book. So we have two academics disagreeing on the book here. You are focusing just on Heckel's comments; not on Romm's (actually he is the editor, so the author may be some other academic) which encourages the use of Ashley. I agree Curtius is in general unreliable; I don't see how it is possible to determine whether Ashley used Curtius as is, or did some filtering the way academics normally do, without subject expertise. Hence the need to take this to Wikiproject History or Military History which are active ones with historians contributing. Churn and change (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to take it to military history or RSN, no problem. Just one note though, Ashley is not an academic and his book is generally poor on knowledge of the field that would lead us to think he could synthesize it well. As the review of the book in the Classical review makes clear: "this is no more than a synthesis of some English-language scholarship compiled by an enthusiast for historical wargames...There is no indication that A. has visited the site of any of the major battles, which might have seemed essential preparation for a specifically military study, and he does not refer to specialist discussions of topography. Bibliographical knowledge is generally poor...I would have preferred to welcome the initiative of an amateur enthusiast on the basis that the interest of outsiders is good for the subject, but this volume claims far too much for itself and all readers must beware." (Michael Whitby 1999, The Classical Review, Vol. 49, No. 2). Just so we understand the question here is that one historian included the work of a popular history text written by a non-historian in a list of additional resources, Heckel says "whoa, this shouldn't even be included in this list" (a harsh criticism). So our question is: Are Ashley's references to Tenedos reputable? AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, in that case, I agree this should be taken out. Seemed like academic sources did cite him, but that likely isn't enough, especially considering we have plenty of far more reliable sources in our citations. Churn and change (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to take it to military history or RSN, no problem. Just one note though, Ashley is not an academic and his book is generally poor on knowledge of the field that would lead us to think he could synthesize it well. As the review of the book in the Classical review makes clear: "this is no more than a synthesis of some English-language scholarship compiled by an enthusiast for historical wargames...There is no indication that A. has visited the site of any of the major battles, which might have seemed essential preparation for a specifically military study, and he does not refer to specialist discussions of topography. Bibliographical knowledge is generally poor...I would have preferred to welcome the initiative of an amateur enthusiast on the basis that the interest of outsiders is good for the subject, but this volume claims far too much for itself and all readers must beware." (Michael Whitby 1999, The Classical Review, Vol. 49, No. 2). Just so we understand the question here is that one historian included the work of a popular history text written by a non-historian in a list of additional resources, Heckel says "whoa, this shouldn't even be included in this list" (a harsh criticism). So our question is: Are Ashley's references to Tenedos reputable? AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion taken to WP:RSN here ya go Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ashley Publication on Tenedos/Bozcaada page. Feel free to contribute there if you feel the need. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Heckel is actually disagreeing with James Romm who seems to have encouraged students to consult Ashley's book. So we have two academics disagreeing on the book here. You are focusing just on Heckel's comments; not on Romm's (actually he is the editor, so the author may be some other academic) which encourages the use of Ashley. I agree Curtius is in general unreliable; I don't see how it is possible to determine whether Ashley used Curtius as is, or did some filtering the way academics normally do, without subject expertise. Hence the need to take this to Wikiproject History or Military History which are active ones with historians contributing. Churn and change (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Responding to all, I'll take this to wherever you all think will decide this appropriately. To correct some problems: 1. I did not use an online review, I used an academic journal review that mentions Ashley's book as amateurish. 2. Heckel is reputable. He's written or translated 10 books on Alexander the Great (through Cambridge and Oxford university presses by the way), including that he wrote the introduction to the main English translation of Curtius. 3. I have Ashley's book in front of me (the 2004 volume), it is great that he says stuff in the Preface about sources used, but if you actually go to the endnotes for his claims about Tenedos they are all to Curtius. Other claims in the book link to other sources, as WP:RS makes clear, it is the context of the claims that matter. 4. Tarn's opinion of Curtius' accuracy is generally held, I just liked Tarn's phrasing: "Curtius is unreliable as a geographer and a historian; especially his rhetorical description of battles is misleading" (Michael van Albrecht, A History of Roman Literature), Cummings history of Alexander the Great calls Curtius "utterly unreliable"), Kenney's Cambridge History of Classical History (some phrases: "his geography is deplorable", his "irresponsibility and nonchalance are demonstrated repeatedly by inaccuracies, contradictions, implausible fabrication of detail...and above all freely confessed willingness to mislead"). 5. Sorry if it wasn't clear how I think Ashley isn't a reputable source. To be clear, Ashley (and his source Curtius for points about Tenedos) appear to have a "a poor reputation for checking the facts" (quote from Questionable Sources on WP:RS). Regardless of all this, I'll take these as objections and of course take it elsewhere. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Tarn is himself a highly dubious source. But all these conflicts between the (much later) discussions of Alexander, both under the Romans and in the early twentieth century, have to do with Alexander's own actions and intentions, not with details like this. 22:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Why did this get moved to a Greek name (along with Gökçeada)?
These islands aren't called by these names, and they are official districts of Turkey. Bruce Jenner's article has been moved to Caitlyn Jenner (even though you'll find more Google Books hits for her previous name, that's for sure), but that argument has been used to move these articles to obsolete names even though they have long been just that -- obsolete. 73.155.94.20 (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Reasons:
1. The article naming guidelines still don't simply state that if all the appropriate maps and such agree, go with that.
2. The article naming guidelines send users off on an original research project into different measures of commonality even in cases of universal cartographic agreement.
3. The administrative closing procedures still don't call for due diligence in checking disputed claims to fact.
4. The administrative closing procedures still call for compromise in all cases, even when not appropriate or impossible.
5. The mere existence of opposition to moves is deemed sufficient to disallow it.
6. The opposition is transparently WP:SEVEN based and therefore irrational.
7. WP:BACKUP issues cause irrational administrative decisions.
Chrisrus (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are the nationalist Greek editors, and there are the nationalist Turkish editors. And then there are the rest of us mere Anglophones, who prefer the names with which we are familiar in this English Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Get a map. Chrisrus (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- As an "Anglophone", with no connection to Greece or Turkey, I can confidently say - yet again - that English-language sources nearly universally use "Bozcaada" to refer to this island in 2015. Some people, Anglophones or otherwise, seem to assume that the name they happen to be familiar with and use is what all Anglophones call it. As noted, a brief perusal of any modern map or contemporary writing on the topic would make the actual name used these days abundantly clear to anyone with an open mind. N-HH talk/edits 14:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well then, is there anything left to discuss first or shall I move it right now? Chrisrus (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Since I am an Anglophone, and have no particular connexion with Greece or Turkey, and have, what is more, consulted a search engine, I can confidently assert that N-HH's assertion is false. The top hits for Bozcaada remain (aside from this article) Turkish tourism sites - and this article. The top non-commercial hit is in Turkish. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- We use the common modern English language name. Check the maps. The name has changed. Chrisrus (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- The maps, and all the specific contemporary English-language newspaper articles and guidebook entries cited ad nauseam, many of which are linked again in the section just above. There are virtually no equivalent modern sources that use Tenedos or that make the explicit, contrary claim that Tenedos is the current name of the island in English writing. Literally, none. Most of what comes up via Google for Tenedos is from older sources or references to the island in history (this is especially clear in a Books search). This is not simply "assertion" on my part. And neither the pompous statement "I am an Anglophone ... and have, what is more, consulted a search engine" nor the unsurprising and irrelevant observation that Bozcaada is also used by Turkish tourism sites and in Turkish-language sites (or the fact that for a small and obscure modern island, these can rank quite highly in a basic search) do anything to rebut that or to prove the evidence I have cited on numerous occasions to be "false". I, too, have consulted a search engine, but chose to look at the results properly and in some detail and, as noted, with an open mind. When the local name changes, the one used in English doesn't always. However, here it has and all the evidence shows that. But if people are simply going to ignore that, and doggedly stick simply to what they happen to prefer, for whatever reason, what can be done? N-HH talk/edits 10:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- The intention of maps varies; but most use Praha, München, Moskva (or even Москва). We don't; we use Prague, Munich, and Moscow. Our purpose is not to help people follow the streetsigns, or even ferry boats. And our purpose does include history; most of this article - like most of the present writing about Tenedos - is about its history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- English language maps only, please. We only consider English language maps. Chrisrus (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was, of course, talking about English maps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Today we tend to refer to Tenedos when talking about the Homeric island and Bozcaada when referring to the contemporary island. All contemporary media referring to events and qualities of the contemporary island use Bozcaada. A Google search suffices to demonstrate this. Hence, it makes sense to have two pages, one for the historical island and one for the contemporary, much as we have separate Constantinople and Istanbul pages. 24.133.27.34 (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- I was, of course, talking about English maps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- English language maps only, please. We only consider English language maps. Chrisrus (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- The intention of maps varies; but most use Praha, München, Moskva (or even Москва). We don't; we use Prague, Munich, and Moscow. Our purpose is not to help people follow the streetsigns, or even ferry boats. And our purpose does include history; most of this article - like most of the present writing about Tenedos - is about its history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- The maps, and all the specific contemporary English-language newspaper articles and guidebook entries cited ad nauseam, many of which are linked again in the section just above. There are virtually no equivalent modern sources that use Tenedos or that make the explicit, contrary claim that Tenedos is the current name of the island in English writing. Literally, none. Most of what comes up via Google for Tenedos is from older sources or references to the island in history (this is especially clear in a Books search). This is not simply "assertion" on my part. And neither the pompous statement "I am an Anglophone ... and have, what is more, consulted a search engine" nor the unsurprising and irrelevant observation that Bozcaada is also used by Turkish tourism sites and in Turkish-language sites (or the fact that for a small and obscure modern island, these can rank quite highly in a basic search) do anything to rebut that or to prove the evidence I have cited on numerous occasions to be "false". I, too, have consulted a search engine, but chose to look at the results properly and in some detail and, as noted, with an open mind. When the local name changes, the one used in English doesn't always. However, here it has and all the evidence shows that. But if people are simply going to ignore that, and doggedly stick simply to what they happen to prefer, for whatever reason, what can be done? N-HH talk/edits 10:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- We use the common modern English language name. Check the maps. The name has changed. Chrisrus (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- As an "Anglophone", with no connection to Greece or Turkey, I can confidently say - yet again - that English-language sources nearly universally use "Bozcaada" to refer to this island in 2015. Some people, Anglophones or otherwise, seem to assume that the name they happen to be familiar with and use is what all Anglophones call it. As noted, a brief perusal of any modern map or contemporary writing on the topic would make the actual name used these days abundantly clear to anyone with an open mind. N-HH talk/edits 14:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Get a map. Chrisrus (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- There are already 2 articles: one for Tenedos and one for the modern administrative unit that geographically coincides with the island.Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that Bozcaada redirects to Tenedos, which it should not. I suggest following the Istanbul/Constantinople division. The Constantinople page has a banner reading, "This article is about the historic city from 323 to 1923. For its predecessor, see Byzantium. For the modern city, see Istanbul." Hence, we could have a banner here stating: "This article is about the modern island of Bozcaada. For the its predecessor, see Tenedos" and vice versa. 24.133.27.34 (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the redirects are the wrong way round. The island is part of modern Turkey, so the article should have its Turkish name, Bozcaada; Tenedos should redirect to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- There is already one article named "Bozcaada, Çanakkale". Actually Bozcaada should redirect to this article with the identical name, since it describes the modern geographic division of Turkey that corresponds to the island, generally known as Tenedos in western literature.Alexikoua (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the redirects are the wrong way round. The island is part of modern Turkey, so the article should have its Turkish name, Bozcaada; Tenedos should redirect to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is that Bozcaada redirects to Tenedos, which it should not. I suggest following the Istanbul/Constantinople division. The Constantinople page has a banner reading, "This article is about the historic city from 323 to 1923. For its predecessor, see Byzantium. For the modern city, see Istanbul." Hence, we could have a banner here stating: "This article is about the modern island of Bozcaada. For the its predecessor, see Tenedos" and vice versa. 24.133.27.34 (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)