Talk:Tetrabiblos

message: [The discussion below was copied from the Wikipedia:Reference Desk]
Hmm. Tetrabiblos currently redirects to Almagest. From reading Ptolemy I see that the former covered astrological stuff, while the latter covered astronomical stuff. Looks like that redirect is wrong. Anyone agree? Carcharoth 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed that problem. I have looked at both books and you are right, they are on different subjects. Plus, they are two separate books, making it like redirecting The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings. Someone needs to un-redirect. Maestlin 18:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the moment I have blanked the redirect page so it no longer redirects. I think there are two options for now: (1) Someone writes a stub article; (2) The page is deleted until someone can write an article (thus turning the blue links red). At the moment, what is in Ptolemy#Astrology is sufficient. Copying that into Tetrabiblos is another option, but rather redundant. I've copied the above three comments to the discussion page for Tetrabiblos. Carcharoth 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect was wrong 

message: Obvious solution! Page redirected to Ptolemy and the current link removed from the Ptolemy article. That way the (less than 10) articles that link to Tetrabiblos will go to Ptolmey. I could redo the Tetrabiblos links in the articles to go to Ptolemy#Astrology, but they would need redoing if someone wrote a Tetrabiblos article. Carcharoth 01:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page redirected to Ptolemy 

message: Please wikilink the Tetrabiblos word in the Ptolemy article. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoever writes this article... 

message: Following  Ihcoyc's recent substantial development of this article I have made a number of edits today and will detail the most significant here, in case anyone wants to raise a question or objection to any of the amendments:
Changes:
# (In lede): changed "Tetrabiblos, its companion volume, was considered equally authoritative in determining the meaning of the astronomical cycles: astrology, the study of the stars and planets in relation to earthly matters" to: "Tetrabiblos, its companion volume, was considered equally authoritative in astrology, the study of the 'outcome' or 'effects' of the astronomical cycles upon earthly matters" - this is to simplify the text and to reflect the definition given in the original title, by which it was known as the book of astrological 'outcomes' or 'effects' (a point covered in the next section of the article).
# (In lede): changed the phrase: "the Tetrabiblos remains a fundamental work still consulted by astrologers practicing Islamic and Western astrology" to "the Tetrabiblos remains an important and influential astrological text which continues to be considered an indispensible reference for serious students of western astrology". The reason for the change is that the phrase "practicing Islamic and western astrology" is confusing, since medieval Islamic astrology is generally considered to be a part of the western astrological tradition, not an alternative contemporary tradition.  Also, the two references linked to the original comment didn't give strong support to the fact that the Tetrabiblos remains a working textbook today, so I changed these refs to one that clearly does demonstrate this.
# (Book I): changed the definition of the word 'ambient' - De Vore is plainly wrong in assuming it has anything to do with the 'tenth sphere' as a compelling force.  This would be the primum mobile which is the highest and remotest sphere - the use of the word in the Tetrabiblos translations is in line with its normal interpretation - I gave the Oxford dictionary definition instead and qualified this by a cross-reference to the Robbins translation.
Additions:
# Added small introductory section on book title to explain the early references to the book's name.
Deletions:
# I removed the statement: "Ptolemy is also responsible for the division of the astrological traditions into sidereal astrology and tropical astrology" (and the text that followed from this).  This is not the case; Ptolemy merely followed convention and repeated the explanation that was given in older texts (for example, Geminos, whose text is certainly much older than Ptolemy's, gives a clear account of the zodiac along similar lines as that described by Ptolemy).  Where the zodiac is mentioned I'll reintroduce this point with a reference to verify that Ptolemy was not originating but only reporting the common view.   
Structure and formatting:
# I moved up the section on 'Influence'; renamed it 'Influence and general overview' and added a little to this, since it seemed to make a good introduction to the more detailed explanation of the contents that follows.
Didn't quite finish the formatting of refs and I have a few more refs and comments to add, but only minor additions now - don't think there are any more significant changes I would suggest. The content that has been put in is very good. I'll come back to add what I can in the next few days. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 00:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I have significantly expanded the discussion of Ptolemy's philosophical argument.  Since this has been so historically important (to theology as well as astrology), the deeper exploration seems justified. It would probably benefit from a fresh pair of eyes.  I'll leave this a day or two and then run over it again myself and pick up the remaining sections. I won't expand these greatly but have a few points to add which demonstrate why this text was so unique and enduring. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 20:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has become one of a very high quality.  I have made some small changes - mainly grammar, spelling and shortening a few sentences but no change to content.  To my eye, words like Renaissance and Earth should be capitalised being proper nouns, but I have left them as I think it is my error.  I am sure WP has a guide on this.  Also can anyone explain fatal necessity - is it predictions that lead to death or predictions that are unavoidable or both?  Robert Currey talk 00:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure about words like 'classical', 'medieval' or 'renaissance' - I don't think they should be capitalised. But Earth probably should, as the other planet names are, being 'proper nouns'. I'll change that.  I'll also change 'fatal necessity' to make it clearer that it refers to fatalism and not the fatedness of death.  Thanks for your useful copy-edits Robert. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 09:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fatal necessity" wiki-links through to 'fatalism' - is this not enough to demonstrate that the term means 'unavoidable fate'?  The term 'fatal necessity' is well used by philosophers so I'm a bit loathe to change it to 'fatalism' for the sake of not repeating that word too many times in the same passage of text.  However, if it's wiser to change it to avoid the confusion, I'm happy to do that.-- Zac  Δ  talk! 09:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of September 2011 

message: I've just finished development of the section outlining the content of book II. I thought I should mention here that I have the intention to develop the final section concerning the contents of books II and IV under one subheading, since both are themed on the subject of making personal predictions based on individual horoscopes. I had previously originated some content for this but lost the file and it may take some time before I can re-do it.  If anyone else wants to step in, feel free, more editorial input would be very good. If not, I'll aim to finish this in a few weeks. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book II content 

message: Since the article is now complete I have submitted it for a FA review request -- Zac  Δ  talk! 11:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submitted for review 

message: The comment which states "Ptolemy was concerned with defending astrology by defining its limits, explaining its rationale, and dismissing practices which lacked an obvious logic", is very close to one which appears on 'Ptolemy on Astrology' which is copyrighted to Graham Hart and the Department of History and Philosophy of Science of the University of Cambridge.  See http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/ptolastrol.html where the text states: "Ptolemy was concerned to defend astrology by defining its limits, compiling astrological data that he believed was reliable and dismissing practices (such as considering the numerological significance of names) that he believed to be without sound basis."
The comment was placed here as part of the original text that was copied over from the Ptolemy page when this page began.  It has been on the Ptolemy page for a long time and it is difficult to know whether it was taken from Hart some years ago, or whether the short entry on Ptolemy on that site took its content from Wikipedia.  It seems safest to assume the former, so I am going to add a refrence to that comment to attribute it to Hart. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 09:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording is too close a paraphrase and might be regarded as plagiarism. Also, I am not sure about the appropriateness of this source. It is not a normal scholarly publication but a website, no longer updated, that seems to be aimed at undergraduate students. Authors contributing to the website have certainly published elsewhere, not necessarily on this topic though. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid controversy, I have removed that text and replaced it with commentary that is supported by references to Tester and Lehoux. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding ref to Graham Hart 

message: It appears to be important in the history of the text, since the 19th century translations are of this rather than than the book itself. Does it not merit a section? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Editions and translations explains the difference between the editions that are based on manuscripts of the Tetrabiblos and those based on the Paraphrase, which is of the same book but uses a simpler form of Greek. It also explains the history of the transmission and how the English versions preceding Robbins were all based on the Allatius edition of the Paraphrase, so I would say that this section covers all the relevant points sufficiently.-- Zac  Δ  talk! 17:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole section needs reorganising under chronological headings. What is a "simpler form of Greek"? Can you clarify, because that wording is meaningless in linguistic terms? Does it perhaps mean Koine Greek? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many classical works have an abridgement in language suitable for the elementary classroom; sometimes sufficiently badly spelled and incoherent to suggest that it is not even the teacher's version, but a student's notes. We are merely fortunate that (unlike Apollodorus of Athens or Gaius Julius Hyginus) it has not displaced the original. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Itsmejudith. It is presently chronologically organised according to the main strands of transmission and I believe that this works best for an effective summary of the key points, which doesn't extend the length of the article considerably. With regard to the "simpler form of Greek" I have added some detail into footnote 127 which will hopefully make clearer that this is something peculiar to Ptolemy's precise but highly complex style of language. One of the comments Schmidt makes is that Ptolemy's ideal book would probably be written in only one sentence.-- Zac  Δ  talk! 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your explanation, Septentrionalis. It's clear that the existence of the Paraphrase is not occasioned by Ptolemy's dense style, but is a recognised phenomenon around many philosophical works. The solution then might be, instead of "simpler Greek", to say "simpler language"? What do you think, S? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is safer to leave it as "simpler Greek" because there was a simplification of the style of writing of manuscripts in Greek between the time of Ptolemy (although Ptolemy was particularly notable for the complexity of his sentence structure) and the Byzantine period. If you can get access, this is discussed fairly fully in Robert Hand's Introduction and Robert Schmidt's Preface to the Project HIndsight translation, vol. 1. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 10:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I've done that now. I hope this is seen as a satisfactory development of the edits that Itsmejudith made. I tried to keep a structure of segmenting the content, but it made more sense to explain which manuscripts were used as a basis for which printed editions. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 06:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proclus' paraphrase

message: Sachiko Kusukawa. 2003. The transformation of natural philosophy: the case of Philip Melanchthon. Cambridge University Press. Good scholarly source describing the Melanchthon-Camerarius correspondence on the Tetrabiblos. The interest of Melanchthon isn't something we can leave out of the article. Google Books preview misses out some key pages. Does someone have library access? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Important source

message: Surely this should be its own section, not part of the summary of the contents. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't agree, because knowledge of the date of compilation has only been deduced by looking at the those introductory remarks in book I, so this is the best place to explain the details of that, (and the date of compilation is in fact mentioned a couple of times before this). -- Zac  Δ  talk! 14:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Date of compilation is an important issue in scholarly study of a work like this. It should be pulled out of the summary of contents. Moreover, the text at the moment gives it as one of "three significant facts" revealed by the introductory remarks. What is the source for the idea that there are these three facts, and not two or five facts? Such interpretations need to be supported by scholarly commentary. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I simply don't agree that it makes sense to move it from where it is explained by reference to the book contents. This is where the reader will understand this and the related points better. And BTW, I know what scholarly means, and what scholarly publications are.  I also know that, in presenting information to a reader, it helps to put facts into a context where the points are more easily understood. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 14:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Re your latter point - only if it what is presented is not accurate or accused of being controversial/unreliable.  Can you make a case that one of those facts is not relevant, or that another relavent fact has been ommitted? -- Zac  Δ  talk! 14:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the onus is on the editor who wants to include something to show that it is sourced. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of compilation 

message: I don't think the reduction of the book headings works.  These are major sections of content so I believe each should have a main heading.   I'll turn them back but if there is a strong consensus that they are better as minor headings then I will not have an objection. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 04:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book headings 

message: In response to suggestions I have overhauled the section on Editions and associated texts which starts here.
I have re-written the section on the Centiloquium, recategorised and developed the other passages; extended the content, built in additional references, named the authors of the sources most used, and checked that every comment is well sourced and reliable.
If anyone has any thoughts or criticisms please specify as there is nothing outstanding that I have planned for this section otherwise. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions and transmissions / Associated texts 

message: Their present convention is that if an article does not receive immediate consensus to promote, it is "not promoted", so that FAC can consider other articles without a backlog of articles under discussion.  A new nomination, when the present discussions are settled, is perfectly in order, although, unless it receive active support from those who opposed the last one, a wait of a few months is often appropriate; non-promotion is not rejection. But I have renominated an article myself immediately,  after working over the few technical issues which had defeated it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note on this Septentrionalis and for coming back to comment. My own thinking is to work through the issues that have already been raised and to try to find ways (if possible) to satisfy any point of criticism that was raised in the FA review request. Hopefully amendments can be made which will resolve all significant concerns. I would prefer to take whatever time is necessary and make the next step some other kind of peer-review process. As part of that, gaining the approval of previous critical reviewers is clearly an objective. I am currently trying to find more secondary sources that overview the book's content, which is not so easy because most repeat certain points on well known passages but don't discuss much of the book's content. I'll do what I can on this and then work over that narrative to see how it can be reduced without cutting it back to a point where an overview is incomplete. Other points they won't be ignored, although I have set some aside for now so I can work through this systematically. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 13:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A note on FAC