Quantum redactiones paginae "Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 31" differant
Content deleted Content added
Linea 827:
::::I agree with everything you say, Jim. The last paragraph especially, in which you seem to be speaking for me.
::::I'll try to express my initial thoughts another way. Most users of English Wikipedia wouldn't be called, or call themselves, "English scholars". Let's see Latin (and Esperanto and Swahili and other non-national languages) in the same perspective in which we see English. Latin in the modern world has more focuses than classical civilization. The best Latinists I happen to know personally (off Wikipedia) are a botanical nomenclature expert, a medieval historian, a physician, and a Protestant theologian. I would add a public orator at a university, but he's dead now. I don't happen to know any Catholic clergy: if I did, there would be another example of a modern Latinist not focused on ancient history. But, yes, some are, and it's absolutely right for us to want our pages on ancient history to be among the best. I want that too! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:06, 8 Septembris 2021 (UTC)
:::::BTW this is folding into a conversation over at Meta about the Ancient Languages changes. The responses from LangCom are basically featuring this kind of view that the Wikis are pointless, don't have an audience, make no contribution to the sum of knowledge; I think the only way to push back on that is to gather evidence, so I have started to [[:meta:Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_III:_Current_Ancient_language_assessment|outline what we would ideally try to find out]]. It feels like a big project (probably lots of interviews) but it would provide the kind of evidence that would allow everyone's views, including ours to be challenged and developed. Feel free to add anything if you like! --[[Usor:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:JimKillock|disputatio]]) 18:56, 9 Septembris 2021 (UTC)
| |||