Disputatio:Diana
|
Diana fuit pagina mensis Augusti 2009. |
Stregheria[fontem recensere]
I removed the assertion about Stregheria and neopagans from the first paragraph.
- In the English article, the stregheria thing is marked "citation needed", and a comment on the talk page en:Talk:Diana (mythology)#Huntress says it is based on work by en:Charles Leland, who appears to have been a "mysterious manuscript" inventor. If I'm mistaken, please replace the info and add a reliable source! But maybe not in the first paragraph, because --
- All health to modern witches, but they are not really all that notable, are they? I mean, as compared with the state religion of the Roman Empire through hundreds of years? I'm planning to write a paragraph about more recent artists' and sculptors' use of Diana, and if there is good, sourced material backing up the neopagan claim, it could go back in towards the end, maybe. Does that make sense? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:22, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
- Yes! IacobusAmor 10:52, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree that it be removed entirely. The claim is verifiable: if you read the stregheria page the source for Diana as one of the forms of the spirit is 'The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism, Shelley Rabinovitch & James Lewis, page 262, (2004).' I am not a neopagan nor do I care for their religion (being athiest), but mentioning that she is worshiped even today adds importance and color to the article. It's like writing an article on Latin on en and mentioning Living Latin and Vicipaedia.--24.183.186.151 14:36, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
- A neat comparison! Following it up, I notice that Vicipaedia doesn't get into the lead section of en:Latin language; nor does it get into the text at all, so far as I can see, though it does merit a link ... But, fine, I agree that neopagan Diana-worshippers should have their moment in the limelight, lower down the page. We're talking about what Conservapedia calls Placement bias. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I guess conservapedia people are experts at bias of all kinds.--Rafaelgarcia 16:42, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
- A neat comparison! Following it up, I notice that Vicipaedia doesn't get into the lead section of en:Latin language; nor does it get into the text at all, so far as I can see, though it does merit a link ... But, fine, I agree that neopagan Diana-worshippers should have their moment in the limelight, lower down the page. We're talking about what Conservapedia calls Placement bias. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree that it be removed entirely. The claim is verifiable: if you read the stregheria page the source for Diana as one of the forms of the spirit is 'The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism, Shelley Rabinovitch & James Lewis, page 262, (2004).' I am not a neopagan nor do I care for their religion (being athiest), but mentioning that she is worshiped even today adds importance and color to the article. It's like writing an article on Latin on en and mentioning Living Latin and Vicipaedia.--24.183.186.151 14:36, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
- Yes! IacobusAmor 10:52, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
Citationes[fontem recensere]
Citationem Catulli abbreviavi, sed dubitanter. Si re vera citatio longa utilis sit, me reverte! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:11, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)