Talk:Boethius/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Page move

I'm moving this page to Boethius (in other words, removing the diacritic from the title), as this seems to be a much more common English spelling of his name (see, for example, the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia Americana, the Catholic Encyclopedia, or the International Boethius Society, and also along with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). If anybody sees a good reason I shouldn't have done this, though, overrule me or just leave a note here and I'll change it back. --Dvyost 17:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It appears that because of an edit history at the redirect I can't handle this one with admin assistance; this is also a fine chance for anyone who thinks I'm in the wrong on this to chime in below. --Dvyost 17:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a general trend to keep names proper and not use nicknames-- see the discussion page at William the Conqueror for more background. Appears to be a somewhat heated issue. Stbalbach 19:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I see where your concern lies, but this I think is more of a spelling issue than a nickname. Even scholarly sources that I can find write his name without the diacritic, and the only Google sites that seem to use this diacritic are our own mirror sites. So again, I guess I'd argue that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) would be the relevant guideline here, rather than the conventions for monarchs cited over at Wm. the Conqueror. Of course, if I'm in the minority on this, I'll happily withdraw my request. --Dvyost 19:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh ok i misunderstood I thought you wanted to change the whole title to just "Boethius". In the case of just removing the diacrictic sounds like a good idea. Stbalbach 22:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with the move to the version without a diacritic. I have heard scholars in the field pronounce his name that way ([bo'i.θiəs] but have never seen it written with an 'umlaut'. It appears that the move is uncontroversial; I'm willing to move it today. — mark ✎ 07:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a diaeresis, and marks that two adjacent vowels are not a diphthong; it just looks like an umlaut. Somewhat archaic, and properly removed here. Septentrionalis 17:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
In fact I've just moved it. Please assist in making all articles link to the new title. — mark ✎ 07:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Done. Much obliged, Mark! --Dvyost 21:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


Repeat Image

As far as I can tell, there's no wikipedia policy barring images from being used in more than one article. I restored the image that was removed. I think it provides a good visual to go along with the "Works" section of the article. Of course others may think otherwise.--Bkwillwm 06:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect Boethius to this article

This is a straw poll to decide if Boethius should redirect to this page, or be a separate disambiguation page.

An example of how it should work is Bach, as detailed in Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

  • Bach redirects to Johann Sebastian Bach which then says “Bach” redirects here. For other uses, see Bach (disambiguation).

Boethius should be structured the same way.

Rules cited

  • According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation on "Deciding to disambiguate":
    • Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

When a user enters "Boethius" they are "realistically expecting" to see the Philosopher. There is no one else with exactly that name, just some with close spellings, and Boethius is by far the most commonly (and specifically only) known.

  • According to Wikipedia:Redirect on "Other names, pseudonyms, nicknames, and synonyms":
    • This is a redirect from a title that is another name, a pseudonym, a nick name, or a synonym. It leads to the title in accordance with the naming conventions for common names and can help writing.

Proposed

Boethis should follow the model of Bach. Boethius redirects -> Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, which then has a line at the top which says “Boethius” redirects here. For other uses, see Boethius (disambiguation).

Support of proposed

  • per nom. --Stbalbach 19:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • But I don't think thwere would have been that much opposition if someonejust went with it. Circeus 20:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • support. I'm sorry, Mel, I don't think WP exists to forcibly instruct people. But, until there are more notable Boethii found, the dab should read: For the late medieval philospher, see Boetius of Dacia; for the Swedish family, see Boëthius (family)). (Don't lets get into the philopher's nationality, please; duck nationalist edit wars when possible.) Septentrionalis 22:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    That's OK; I knew that some people (maybe most) would disagree with me — I wanted to air the matter though. I didn't get the bit about nationality, though; were you referring to Boetius of Dacia? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, the Dacian/Swede/whatever. Sorry for leaving this ambiguity so long, I've been occupied with my pet enthusiast for the last few days. Septentrionalis 21:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. "Boethius" on its own should redirect here. Uppland 20:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I also would love everybody to know more of Boetius of Dacia, and some would probably say that his philosophy is even more original than that of the Roman Boethius; but honestly, if I hear the word "Boethius" the chances I think about Boetius of Dacia are quite slim.--Aldux 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Come on, people, this is obvious. Hornplease 08:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Opposed to proposed

  • Well, there was opposition I'm afraid (raises guilty hand). There had been no disambiguation page, and I created one; as the Boethius page was doing nothing except redirect, I used it. My view is that there are various people called Boethius, and although people with an interest in philosophy will probably be looking for this one, we shouldn't be second-guessing them. Besides, typing in "Boethius" and discovering that there are two philosophers by that name should be an interesting and educational experience for many. (It's true that this approach made more sense before someone made a new page just for members of a modern family of this name.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


How sad!

This is a rather poor showing for arguably the most revered philosopher of the middle ages, and the man solely responsible for the West's knowledge of Aristotle during that period!

Absolutely — this should be a kick-ass featured article. Great additions! — mark ✎ 07:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, why are the Pope's supremely banal observations included at the end? Surely there have been scholars with more interesting things to say about Boethius' general contribution to Western culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.159.149 (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 21:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius → Boethius — per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, presently, Boethius redirects to Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. Anicius appears to be the primary topic for this name. Ucucha 13:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Correction

The information presented in the Veneration section of this article is inconsistent with Roman Catholic teaching. Boethius is granted the title of saint in only one diocese in the world, where the tradition of his martyrdom originates. It is the distinct honor of the diocese of Pavia to be the only diocese that recognizes him as such:

"The local cult of Boethius at Pavia was sanctioned when, in 1883, the Sacred Congregation of Rites confirmed the custom prevailing in that diocese of honouring St. Severinus Boethius, on the 23rd of October." (Turner, William. "Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 26 Nov. 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.3.88 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes in style and fixes to content

Many of the changes I completed recently basically involve style and readability: splitting up long sentences into shorter ones, replacing awkward or unusual word choices like "posterity" where something like "legacy" is intended, and removing extra links for the same word.

The more substantive changes are:

  • The second paragraph of the "Early Life" section seemed to imply that Theoderic intentionally reduced the influence of the previous classical heritage, when he was actually a strong patron of art and culture.
  • The old third paragraph of the "Early Life" section implied the classical education was almost exclusively literary, when mathematics was actually a significant component of the entire quadrivium.
  • The section on "Works" placed too much emphasis on the Consolation of Philosophy compared to the translations which were his life's work. It also states the opinion regarding his alleged lack of Christian belief as fact, without any explicit citation, while all the sources I saw deny that assertion.

StephenMacmanus 12:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Great additions! --Stbalbach 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added to the Works Cited sections, discussing two important texts of Boethius's, the In Ciceronis Topicia and the De topicis differentiis. The impact of these texts on topical argumentation is huge, so not having something on them is really problematic. I think they could also potentially get their own page, if someone was willing to develop them further, but I just added the two paragraphs (second and third paragraphs in Works Cited). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoethianAcolyte (talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Works" and De topicis differentiis

It seems that the discussion of De topicis differentiis in the Works section is enough to use to separate off into a separate De topicis differentiis article. Any supporters? As it is now, the discussion of Boethius the man seems oddly distracted by an extended discussion of this one work. However, it is very well done. I'm therefore marking it as in need of a Split. Akhenaten0 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology(?)

I'm wondering if the name Boethius has any relationship with Greek Βοηθεια = "assistance" , both in the military or medical sense. Anybody has an idea? Disdero 07:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Anybody know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.191.117 (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Remark

Indeed I'd like to point out that all over the web a well done page listing the complete works of Boethius(WITH correct latin titles) is shamefully (and absurdly) wanting. Neither of the wiki-entries in english, french or italian has adequate informations. As for the german I couldn't understand: anyway something in form of orderly catalogue is awfully lacking. Shouldn't be prehaps the duty of a site in the most widespread language under the heaven, the sermo anglicus, to provide it? And these absences concern some other entries, as well.

I added the missing list of complete works of Boethius. Raul Corazzon (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

The introductory part of this article is confusing and could do with some rewriting to make it clear -- Palthrow 02:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that most of the biographical narrative that's in the introduction should be moved to the sections on his life and death. Perhaps a few more words on his influence on the philosophical world could be added to the introduction in lieu of these biographical details. This would make the introduction more pithy, concise, and clear, and would portray more clearly Boethius's historical and philosophical importance. Apples&lemons (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point (assuming you mean the "lead" when you say "introduction"). The lede whould summarize the article content, and little of the data in it appears in the article as such. This is a structural matter, rather than one of content. The biographical detail does not belong there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Boethius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boethius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boethius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boethius/Archive_1&oldid=1136572458"