User talk:Graearms

This is Graearms's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Isopoliteia between Hierapytna and Priansos. Thanks! Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This popped up on my article alerts, so I took a glance at it. These suggestions seemed too lengthy to leave on the draft page, so I'm posting them here. You're an experienced editor, so I know you'll understand that these are only suggestions based on my own experience and preferences.

As far as the title goes, I suggest changing it to "Treaty between Hierapytna and Priansos". Non-classical scholars are unlikely to recognize or understand the term "Isopoliteia", or to search under it. Since we generally refer to these agreements as "treaties", that might help readers identify what it is. We do have the English word "Isopolity", so in the lead sentence you might call it the "Treaty of Isopolity between Hierapytna and Priansos", though that seems too long for the article title, hence the abbreviated suggestion. You could give "Isopoliteia" as an alternative rendering in the lead, or place the word in a note to "Isopolity". I like to use {{efn-lr|}} note tags, since small Roman numerals won't be easily mistaken for reference numbers, but there are other alternatives. The lead sentence should probably link to each of the cities involved; redlinks will be fine if they do not both have articles, or just leave them as plain text.

I've changed the title and expanded the lead sentence. Graearms (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraphs are rather long, particularly the second one. Because they are rather technical, it might be a good idea to see if you can break them up into smaller chunks. Spots that suggest themselves are after the words "in a public capacity" in the first paragraph; and before "Classical archaeologists" (lowercase, I think, as "archaeologists" is not a proper noun), "Some scholars", or "It is unclear" (but not in all three places; this could be two, perhaps three paragraphs, but four seems like it would result in too many disjointed thoughts); the third paragraph as you have it might be harder to break up, so you might just leave it as-is.

I've added another paragraph break to the article. Graearms (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of the second paragraph, I think it should be "would host legal proceedings", not "will host legal proceedings". This is a hypothetical occurrence, and in any case would have occurred in the past, and no longer applies; elsewhere in this paragraph you consistently use subjunctive and pluperfect constructions, except when referring to what the text still says, which seems correct.

I've just corrected the word choice Graearms (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toward the end of the third paragraph is "to securely despot" (which of course is a split infinitive, and not the only one you have, though I don't think they need to be reworded). I'm not familiar with the use of "despot" as a verb, though I certainly see what it would mean. Wiktionary does not show either "despot" or "depot" as a verb, which makes me think that their use as verbs is archaic. I am not opposed to archaic use where the meaning will be clear to readers, but I wonder if this will tend to be "corrected" by editors who are sticklers for modernizing language. Perhaps "deposit" would be better here. Note: on reviewing this I think it is a typo; the archaic form would probably be "depost", not "despot", but that's not shown as a verb either. This looks like something that autocorrect might do.

It was a typo for "deposit." I've fixed this issue. Graearms (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am less certain about the use of "they/them/their" to refer to a single prosecutor, defendant, or person acting in a public capacity. I generally dislike the use of a plural pronoun to refer to individuals, though I understand that the purpose is to be gender-neutral. Of course in nearly all cases the people involved will have been men, or were anticipated to be men (there's nothing here about whether these provisions were ever invoked, and it may be there are no extant texts mentioning it if they were). I could of course see a widow or heiress suing or being sued in her own capacity, though not acting in a public capacity. Perhaps it would be better to reword these sentences to have a plural subject; then the plural pronouns would work and there would be no issue with gender neutrality.

I did not utilize singular "they" to maintain gender neutrality; it is just a component of how I naturally speak. I personally don't see fit to change it, as singular "they" has existed in the English language for centuries. For instance, Shakespeare used it:^[1]

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend

Graearms (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this may have been because Shakespeare was referring to multiple persons, hence a plural pronoun. But singular "they" has become common enough to be considered acceptable, so I was only providing my opinion. P Aculeius (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I forgot to add, the use of "reference" as a verb at the end of the last body paragraph. This is very common nowadays, but still sounds wrong when "reference" is used to mean "refer to". Reference is a noun meaning words that refer to something else—a citation to authority, an allusion to something. You can cite a source, you can allude to something—but you don't "citation" it, you don't "allusion" it, and it sounds just as wrong to "reference" it.

I've change it to "refer to." Graearms (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the text "as rendered by the Packard Humanities Institute" belongs in the body of the article. Stating it suggests that other transcriptions materially differ from this one, although if that's the case then it ought to be mentioned. So unless there is some disagreement or uncertainty about the Greek text, the source of the transcription is of minimal importance, and would be better footnoted. I'm not saying that it's unimportant; merely that placing it in the body of the article draws unnecessary attention to it, as though the transcription were in some way suspect.

I also might suggest that because the transcription is quite lengthy, the end of the article body seems rather abrupt. A section providing additional context or information about the inscription following it might be desirable. This might also be a place you could mention whose transcription it is, instead of in a footnote, provided that's not the only thing there is to say about it; if that's all there is, then again it tends to draw attention to the source in a way that might make readers think it's somehow uncertain.

I've removed the comment about the author of the transcription Graearms (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, and least importantly, I prefer to avoid "BCE" instead of "BC", as it looks fussy and less recognizable to readers. I understand that some editors feel that the term is "more neutral" than one explicitly referring to the birth of Christ; as a non-Christian myself I often find the deliberate insertion of religious terminology annoying. However, this is an exception; nobody except religious scholars actually assigns any religious significance to the era names, and I am unaware of anyone who finds them offensive when used in a historical context, simply because they do not believe in Christ.

Speaking solely for myself, because "CE" and "BCE" still arise out of and correspond with Dionysius Exiguus' sixth-century calculation of the birth of Christ, there is something about these terms that seems dishonest, disingenuous, duplicitous, or perhaps even patronizing. And I don't like to be patronized! But to be absolutely clear, I am not attributing any of these motives to you in choosing to use them, nor am I saying that you ought not to be free to use them—it is still ultimately your decision, and it should not affect whether your draft is accepted at AfC.

I did not use Common Era dates for the purpose of preserving neutrality. Honestly, I've also never felt offended or excluded by the usage of BC/AD dates. I began using them because I figured it was becoming more standard within academic circles. After a while, it just became more natural for me to use BCE/CE instead of BC/AD. Graearms (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issues here that ought to prevent your article from being accepted; to me it looks ready for mainspace already. P Aculeius (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]