Talk:The Fimbria controversies (Nova Roma)

Contents 1 Author's Note 2 Pronouns 3 Format of names 4 Chronology and Formatting 5 Links to Main List 6 Nota 7 Responsum Apollonium

Author's Note

I know it is not customary to sign one's Wiki articles. I had originally done so here. Someday, when this one has been fleshed out, passed the NPOV test, and been linked to all appropriate persons and decrees, it will no longer require my signature or anyone else's; it will by then be the result of a community effort, as any good Wiki page should be.

In the meantime, however, someone created a link to this page without creating the page itself. The requirement is there. I would rather someone else wrote the thing...but it has to be written, and so far I seem to be the only taker. As long as this is the case, this article will, for me, by nature of its subject matter if nothing else, remain personal--intensely so. Hence the byline. I've since removed it; but I wanted the community to know my reasoning.

As to attributing thoughts, feelings and motivations to the subject, while such attribution is not normally deemed desirable, in this case I believe it to be critical to understanding the issue. It is very true that no Wiki writer should try to guess what was going on in the mind of his subject. It is also true that if, as I believe, it must be done here...as the subject himself, I am the only one who can do it. Again, if the Nova Roma Wiki community thinks this is a bad idea, it can be corrected; but someone else will have to do the correcting then...I'm afraid I don't have it in me to be that professional about it.

Hopefully the final version will be comprehensive, extensively documented, footnoted and linked, contain many more voices than my own and many more perspectives. It is not necessary that it be sympathetic to Fimbria unless that is what the community has come to agree about the incident. -- Marius Peregrinus 10:18, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

Pronouns

I used double pronouns ("his/her", e.g.) in the first part of the article, dropping them for the masculine once Marius realises who and what he really is. I'd be happier to eliminate them entirely, but thought I'd err on the side of diplomacy. If I've gone too far (or not far enough) in the desired direction, please advise and I'll make them consistent throughout. -- Marius Peregrinus 10:18, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

There is another way: re-write to eliminate the pronouns. I've done that for much of the first paragraph and I hope it reads well and it does avoid the assignment of gender to the subject. That will perhaps permit the reader to focus on the issues, not the gender. Agricola 08:21, 9 August 2007 (CEST)

I like it! But it was a little harder to do in that second paragraph (gratias ago for paragraphing it, btw), so I just made the pronouns consistent there. (I only had two left to change.) You're right, the clumsy "s/he" construction only draws attention to the very thing Lucius Marius was trying to minimise.

I changed your iuno link; the corresponding article is about the goddess and her aspects, whereas the iuno as a woman's tutelary spirit is mentioned in the article for genius. I've also moved the last sentence of the second paragraph to be the first sentence of the third; this was done in order to highlight the contrast between Marius' and the leadership's interpretation of his request. -- Marius Peregrinus 07:19, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

In the long run we are going to have to have a disambiguation page for Iuno. Your correction should stand here, though, as correct linking is better than linking to a disambiguation page. Agricola 06:03, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

Format of names

What do I do with the names? It'd be cumbersome to roll out "Lucius Marius Fimbria", exempla gratia, every single time he is mentioned (and he's got the shortest name of any of the principals! <g>); what is the practice here, for readability and variety? (For now I've used the full name on the first mention; either praenomen-nomen or nomen-cognomen the second time; and cognomen only for the remainder of the piece.) -- Marius Peregrinus 08:21, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

Chronology and Formatting

I hope you don't mind, but I jumped ahead to the end. Also, I added headings using our year templates. I strongly urge this approach as being neutral and avoiding the issue of topical headings. I have a notion that the excellent APA link would be better as a reference footnote. This is because the off-wiki links always have that distracting arrow icon and I would like to see ALL of them moved to References sections. Agricola 06:51, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

Is good. The beginning and end just about wrote themselves; it's the in-between that's making me fidget. I think we've gone about as far as we can with this before having to name names; I'd be happy to be mistaken. -- Marius Peregrinus 10:18, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

Suggest we fill in the factual gaps as much as possible from records on mailing lists etc. before we worry about that. Exactly when, for example, was "Some years later"? Agricola 16:06, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

A wise approach. I don't want to trust only memory for the detailed portion. I spent my first four years away from Nova Roma trying to forget as much of this matter as I could. (I'm only here now on psychiatric clearance.) That's why I've been looking for my paper records...and patiently recovering data from my old 386 Laptop. When that's been done, I'll have the Nota, the Main List postings, and everything else. But it'll be a while. -- Marius Peregrinus 20:02, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

Y2K: All of this happened, in pretty close to this order; however, the chronology is still being solidified. A definitive account must await other minds as well as the further recovery and perusal of my printed and e-mail records. -- Marius Peregrinus 20:59, 17 August 2007 (CEST)

I like the year templates; I just don't know how to invoke them myself. You're correct, they do contribute to the neutrality of tone. Perhaps I should just provide such raw materials as I have, encourage interested others to do the same, then let the Wiki wizards take over the formatting...? -- Marius Peregrinus 10:18, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

We have help for entering dates. I suggest you concentrate on content first. People like myself, with nothing else to contribute, can help with format.Agricola 16:06, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

Don't sell yourself short! I've known planes to crash for missing a cotter-pin. Those little details can make or break any effort. -- Marius Peregrinus 20:02, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

Putting reference links in their own section is a good idea. However, I think the APA link will need to stay where it is. It is vital that the reader understand what "transgender" means before continuing on to what happened to that one individual that one time. -- Marius Peregrinus 10:18, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

Links to Main List

Umm...any links to messages on the NR Main List will only work if one is a subscriber. Replicating the text here is one good solution, but beyond my physical capability; or the list owners could change the group settings so that the message archives are no longer "Members Only". (The list archives were public when I was Curator Sermonem; apparently that's changed?) -- Marius Peregrinus 20:10, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

I find it an outrage that the ML is set this way, but it is up to the praetors and it may change from time to time, so let any links stand, please. If the ML setting change the links will work for all. If the ML stays restricted, people need only subscribe to make them work. It isn't a pretty situation, but that is the best we can do. It is important to keep the links. I want to stress that: please keep the links to ML posts. Agricola 04:19, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

I will grow wings and a tail before I remove anyone else's links to any working resource. I just want them to work for everyone; otherwise the painstaking work of locating the resource will yield no benefit for those not already in a position to read the posts themselves...be they readers or researchers. -- Marius Peregrinus

I still find it distasteful that needed records are kept away from public view. However it was pointed out on NRWiki that magistrates must disclose their macronational names in oaths of office, hence all the privacy; it keeps their names from being harvested. I don't think there is much risk, but it is a rationale, and seemingly the one in use. Therefore I expect the ML archives to remain closed to the public, maybe forever. Perhaps helpful editors, seeing these links, will import short bits of relevant material and integrate it into the article. No macronational names and as much as is covered by fair use. Agricola 06:06, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

I don't suppose there could be a list just for magistrates' oaths, could there? Or some other way to handle them...say, by publication in a special Aquila issue, sent to all citizens and containing nothing but oaths? There is precedent for 'procedural' lists; there's one just for censorial nota hearings (though, strangely, neither of the current censors has access). It's crazy to hold back that much information for something that comes in batches of a few dozen just once or twice a year. -- Marius Peregrinus 07:47, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Be careful. If you ask for another mailing list you might get ten. Agricola 08:14, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

I like the Aquila idea better, actually; something about the durability and "officialness" of print... -- Marius Peregrinus 19:36, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Nota

A funny thing: the Nota was actually issued for a chatroom prank, and other than making up part of the general hostile atmosphere towards Lucius Marius that year, it had no relation to the "gender wars". (Note: the link to the Nota text itself only works for those who are already subscribed to the [Nova-Roma] List. Does the text exist somewhere else, or can it be made to?) -- Marius Peregrinus 08:00, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

I couldn't find the nota, but I have only a vague idea when it was issued. When it is found on whatever list it exists on, we can copy it into the wiki. I did this with the recent edictum; linked to the original post and copied text here. Agricola 16:06, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

I haven't bumped into it either, but this may help: The nota hearing was held in October-November of 2000, on a private Yahoo list called [Censor_Nota]. The list still exists; it turns up on a Yahoo directory search. The nota text will be there...only, no one I've talked to has access to that list. I can send you my testimony for the hearing. -- Marius Peregrinus 10:18, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

Responsum Apollonium

Just wanted to say (and I say it under a new sub-heading simply for ease of reading) that the article seems to be shaping up very nicely. I had meant to make a start on it myself, but the time disappeared, and it's nice to see it's happening anyway - and in fact coming from a better-informed source than I.  :) Perhaps in due course I'll join in with the footnoting and adding of documents.

- Cordus 20:32, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

Gratias ago for the encouragement! -- Marius Peregrinus 10:18, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

P.S. Why the change of title? It doesn't make an enormous difference, but the original title seems to me a more Roman (i.e. more Latin) way to express the idea. I was thinking, by way of analogy, with the foedus Mancinum.

- Cordus 20:38, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

Perhaps...but no one who remembers it actually called it that. It was variously referred to as "the gender debate", "the Gender Wars", or "[the latest] Great Big Noisy [or List-]Fuss". (Also "Marian obstructionism", "blasphemy", and "a danger to the state".) I chose the present title as being recogniseable, usable, yet hopefully neutral-ish. (As a perpetually Confuzzled human being, ease-of-use goes a long way with me.) >({|:-) -- Marius Peregrinus 10:18, 13 August 2007 (CEST)