Jump to content

Talk:Greek and Roman Egypt

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jiang (talk | contribs) at 07:32, 14 December 2003 (to Adam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why didn't you just fix the markup instead of fighting about it? This doesn't show the border because this is a talk page - and I can't fix the article because you two have been fighting over it instead of fixing the thing for all browser widths. Kindly indicate your willingness to stop fighting, get the page unprotected and let me fix the problem. Jamesday 07:28, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ptolomaic Egypt

In 332 BC Alexander the Great, King of Macedon, conquered Egypt, with little resistance from the Persians. He was welcomed by the Egyptians as a deliverer. He visited Memphis, and went on pilgrimage to the oracle of Amun at the Oasis of Siwa. The oracle had the good sense to declare him to be the son of Amun. He conciliated the Egyptians by the respect which he showed for their religion, but he appointed Greeks to virtually all the senior posts in the country, and founded a new Greek city, Alexandria, to be the new capital. The wealth of Egypt could now be harnessed for Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire. Early in 331 BC he was ready to depart, and led his forces away to Phoenicia.

Ptolemy I

Ptolemy II

Ptolemy III

The decline of the Prolemies

The later Ptolemies

Roman Egypt

Roman rule in Egypt

Christian Egypt

Byzantine Egypt

Reference

Merging Ptolemaic dynasty in here is a complete mistake. We have nearly-bald lists of rulers for a reason, namely to allow the reader (or the WP editor) to do random access on people without having to wade through pages of purple prose looking for that list. Look at "what links here"; the long list of xrefs should be a hint. Fixing this is not time-critical though, I'll do it tomorrow if I don't hear any convincing reasons not to. Stan 14:36, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well if you're going to restore it you'd better fix it up, because it is missing a Ptolemy somewhere. Cleopatra's son was Ptolemy XV. Adam 12:31, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Later: No, I am wrong. The table doesn't include Ptolemy XV but the numbering down to Ptolemy XIV is correct. For some reason the 1911 EB has them numbered differently. It's very confusing but the article I have written seems to show the currently accepted numbering. Adam

I've protected the page to stop the continued reverting. You might both want to have a look at the three revert rule. Angela. 04:18, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Bah another ridiculous revert war. What's the big deal? Dori | Talk 04:42, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

The comments at User_talk:Jiang#my_photos should tell you something. --Jiang | Talk
The rever war is worse than a bad format (in this case I agree with your format, but I don't think Adam's is horrible). Dori | Talk 05:31, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

This is beyond silly. Layout disagreements are just about the easiest type to resolve. I hate doing this, but if it stops them... Daniel Quinlan 05:11, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Vote to last 24 hours. Ends 05.11, 15 December 2003 (UTC)

Vote on layout:

  • Adam Carr's version
    • Jamesday (Best of two broken versions but it depends on browser and window width)
  • Jiang's version
    • Daniel Quinlan (it does look better in my browser, Mozilla 1.0)
    • Adam Bishop (it at least looks better on whatever IE version this is, on whatever sort of Mac this is)
      • It also looks better on Netscape, now that I am at home. Adam Bishop
    • Jiang (this is how Adam's version looks on my computer: [1], this is how my version looks: [2])
    • Zocky (Looks better in my mozilla firebird)
    • Dori
    • Tuf-Kat
    • VV (Not trying to "take sides"; just better on my browser at all sizes, and in the right place (Ptolemaic))
    • Wik 06:41, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC) (though even Jiang's version fails when I hide the TOC; the picture should be moved even further down)
  • Either

Second vote on behavior classification:

Why does Jiang's computer have more rights here than my computer does? Is Jiang Wikipedia Art Director? Have any actual readers complained about the format of this page? Why does Jiang have any interest whatever in this page, other than I wrote most of it and he enjoys annoying me? Just wondering. Adam 05:28, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can you please post a picture as well. From Jiang's picture and my browser, his version looks better. Dori | Talk 05:33, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
I'd like it if those with dogs in this fight post pictures of both versions as rendered by their systems. Salsa Shark 05:37, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Whatever happened to the rule of thumb of no more than 3 reversions by either side in an edit war? (I know it's not a law of Wikipedia, but any edit fight that has more than that many reversions makes the participants look increasingly childish.) And it's all about where to put one jpeg file? Why not make this about something worthwhile, like the Israeli/Palestinian issues of Greco-Roman Egypt, or whether we should use German or Polish names for the cities & bodies of water? Sheesh! -- llywrch 06:17, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Obviously we should use the Coptic names of rivers, and I'll revert you if you say otherwise :) Adam Bishop 06:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Not that I know much about ancient Egypt, but I know that use of Coptic names is deeply offensive. It is a matter of honour to change all Coptic names to Sarmatian ones. Zocky 06:26, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment here; there are much better things to rage about. For instance, isn't "The early Ptolemies were wiser rulers than the Persians had been" a little POV? -- VV 06:32, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It may come as a surprise to non-historians, but historians are allowed to have points of view, even when writing in encyclopaedias. It would be almost impossible to write intelligible history withour expressing points of view. It is the historian's job to interpret historical evidence, and this always entails forming a point of view. Thus the statement that "James II was a bad king" is the settled opinion of 300 years of historiography, and will remain so until someone challenges it with new evidence. Having said that, the statement about the Ptolemies and the Persians is one of the few survivals in this article from the 1911 EB text on which this article was based, and could probably be removed - when the article is unprotected. It's good to see so many people taking an interest in ancient history all of a sudden. :) Adam 06:48, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Weren't the Persians generally pretty bad at maintaining an empire? (Of course, I say this after reading Herodotus for a few months...) Adam Bishop 06:51, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

They certainly had no clue how to govern Egypt, something the Ptolemies were much better at. Adam 07:17, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Of course this dispute is not really about where this picture goes on this page. It is about Jiang's persistent, indeed obsessive, habit of making frivolous and unnecessary edits to pages other people have written, while making no useful contributions of his own that I am aware of. I am very far from being the only person who finds this very annoying. Adam 06:25, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Chill Adam. Jiang is making useful contributions all the time, and he was just trying to improve the formatting. Don't take everything personal. --Wik 06:41, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
Can someone direct me to an article Jiang has written? I might go and do a little copyediting or aesthetic criticism of my own. Adam 06:48, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It's standard practice for people to edit other people's pages. No individual owns pages here. It is immaterial whether or not Jiang has written an article. Some of our best editors spend their whole day correcting spelling and grammar. Daniel Quinlan 07:04, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
Try Pat Nixon. --Wik 06:52, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
That was copied mostly from the white house website. --Jiang | Talk

If you are against copyeditors and the concept of copyediting, then maybe Wikipedia is not the right project for you. Users are not required to write very long perfect and scholarly prose. Articles are not required to be perfect to begin with - and they are not. It's perfectly fine to format, clarify, rearrange, etc. the works of others. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. Don't complain if other users come along and perfect your work. You are also free to peruse my contributions and find for yourself what I have contributed. --Jiang | Talk 06:56, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have no objectiong to be being copyedited. I am far from being a perfect writer, and very far from being a perfect typist. PMelvilleAustin seems to have dedicated his life to copyediting my articles, and usually to their advantage. What happened here was not copyediting. It was Jiang imposing his opinion about what format looks better than what other format, something he has no obvious qualifications to do. Adam

"Of course this dispute is not really about where this picture goes on this page." Really? Do you think that your version is less hideous on my screen than mine is on yours?
What "qualifications" do you speak of? --Jiang | Talk 07:32, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greek_and_Roman_Egypt&oldid=1955494"