Talk:Egeria (mythology)

message: Other references (e.g. Diana) link Diana (goddess). Should not this page be moved for consistency? Goddess also seems more appropriate than mythology owing to modern goddess-worshiping religions. Leonard G. 06:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Egeria (deity). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991011020918/http://www.romacivica.net/tarcaf/engfra/cafgen_e.htm to http://www.romacivica.net/tarcaf/engfra/cafgen_e.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991011020918/http://www.romacivica.net/tarcaf/engfra/cafgen_e.htm to http://www.romacivica.net/tarcaf/engfra/cafgen_e.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Although the sec tion is "well sourced" as User:SharabSalam points out. It is also completely beside the point. Would SharabSalam please explain why this is WP:DUE or rather relevant in any way whatsoever? I might be tempted to construe this as a petty tit-for-tat revert, but WP:AGF tells me to give SharabSalam a chance to explain. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: the connection has been made by many reliable sources and no that's not undue weight the author is notable enough to be included just like other sections which are only sourced to one or two sources. Saying that this is a tit-for-tat is assuming bad faith.-SharabSalam (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is that connection? What is the relevance to Egeria? Generic blather about sources is not a valid argument. Did you actually read the sources? Kleuske (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the source? The source mention Egeria 22 times! also you said this was undue; no it was not--SharabSalam (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

text: So apart from a simple text search, you did not actually read the source. Either that or you fail to recognize a classical literary reference (an allusion) and treat it as a reference to the mythological nymph whom Numa married. In any case, this is interesting material for the Jefferson biography, but nothing with the actual nymph. It is highly WP:UNDUE. I cannot shake the impression you are playing games. Stop wasting time. Kleuske (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egeria, Sally Hemings, and Thomas Jefferson 

message: I believe there is sufficient new information in an article from the Smithsonian Magazine in November 2016 to include a reference to it in the main article.  Here is a summary write-up.  I will leave it to others to decide how much of this to include in the Main Article:
45.30.87.79 (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Information Available from the Smithsonian Magazine about John Adams Political Allusions to Egeria with reference to Thomas Jefferson that I think is Relevant Enough for Inclusion in the Main Article