Talk:Osci

message: The details about the other names of Osci are great.  It might be nice to have a map of Italy to see where they Osci were settled, like between Latium and Campania.  Also, in the 3rd to last sentence, you need to put it in past tense, changing "attack" and "defeat" to "attacked" and "defeated".  Also, once you figure out how to work the links, make sure you make the links for terms like locations, Romans, and Thucydides. Romanciv14 20:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Hey, you're not in my group but you're sitting right next to me in the library and I thought I'd proof it for you! I enjoyed the article.
Antichus, who was generally regarded as Thucydides source for western history
-- This is unclear, is it "Thucydide's" perhaps?
The Oscan name survived through this because
-- I'd be more specific about what "this" is.
Being that the Osci were farmers and the Ager Pomptinus contained very fertile land, this area would have been very valuable to them
-- I'd take out "being that" and state more that the Osci were farmers, HENCE this area would be valuable to them.
Nice bullet point!
Awesome reference section!
Hope this helps. 
- Aaron Lee
- Differentialpi 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Here is a reference you might like to read that was used in the Sea Peoples article.  Go to that article and click the link; the PDF is free.  p. 115 is the good part.
Woudhuizen, Frederik Christiaan. April 2006. The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples. Doctoral dissertation; Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Faculteit der Wijsbegeerte.   
4.249.63.248 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wekesh 

message: I'm glad you have such a pleasant comradeship in the library. If you are good at that (to quote a certain film character), maybe you should stick to that. Whatever you are doing in the library, it can't be looking for information on this article, as the article is nearly totally wrong from top to bottom. For example, how can Oscans be Latin-Faliscans and still be the original Indo-Europeans? Campania? But the map shows Oscans over most of southern Italy! I think on this you need to follow WP procedures and policies. That absurd note under "References" is NOT a reference. There are none. All this is, is student opinions given off the top of the head. That is not the purpose of WP although you might be excited by the prospect. I don't think really you have time for this. You can't be doing well in any course work on the topic. Maybe the problem is your comradeship in the library. If you do one thing, you can't do another. Pity it is tis true and true it is tis pity. I am sorry to sound like a teacher but someone has to do the job. It should be you. Teach yourself. Meanwhile I am not going to lard this "article" (I use the term loosely) with all the templates it deserves. I save that for argumentative editors. I am going to put it on my list for attention from time to time (when I get time). Feel free meanwhile to study ancient history with a view to improving yourself and article.Dave (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's get to work

message: Botteville's revision is wrong 
the latin-faliscan origin of the Opici and the super-imposition of an Oscan strata has been ascertained by the studies of Giacomo Devoto, Gli antichi Italici, 2a ed. Firenze, Vallecchi, 1951. (see page 112)
http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL42442A/Giacomo_Devoto
the rest of the article about the oscan langiage is vague and off topic as Oscan was a major language group who enclosed many different groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscan_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_peoples_of_italy#Indo-European_Italics
and the samnites though famous were simply one of them  no more then a 4 tribes federation, and a different branch from the Osci of the same family too
the Samnites were a sabellina group of the Oscans, the Osci were of the old core group and more related to the Sabines forex
then the classical reference as most of them is debatable as beeing legendary and frequently wrong, as the case of the traditional trojan or greek of every people of antiquity so common amongst the ancient authors, they always need of a modern confirmation 
some truth in the Ausones reference can be in the fact that the ausones too were a latin-faliscan group as the Opici, the ausones were also part of the italic peoples who settled in Sicily
P.S. most of the anglo-saxon scholarship about the ancient italic peoples is outdated of a couple of centuries, essentially it is all from old classical sources but nothing of modern, for more updated informations one must rely essentially on italian or french authors
on th english wiki two good voices are
Prehistoric Italy
Ancient peoples of Italy
Cunibertus (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice, buddy. It isn't my article and I didn't say most of that stuff but that does not really matter, does it? On behalf of the editors of this article I accept all these suggestions for consideration. Thank you also for the maps. I will not be able to tell you, I agree, disagree, until I look at everything detail. If you have included it above and I find it is valid then be assured it will get in. By validity I mean backed up by references. I am a "reference man." True I slip up from time to time but the bottom line is going to be whether there is an authoritative reference for it. Just at first glance I see you have WP refs. Unless those locations contain referenced statements as to what you want to say, they are no good. WP is not a usable reference. Sorry, that is policy. If it were not, there could be no foundation in authoritative scholarship for WP. I am sure you must see that. I say something on WP, you quote me elsewhere, neither of us give a reference - this is unreferenced material. I don't know if that is the case until I check it. You don't get to jump into the ring with me and have it all out, whatever that may be. I work slowly, carefully and piecemeal and without malice aforethought. This article is due for another Dave session but when I do I will only be considering some aspects of it so I wil not be fixing everything. Then I will be moving on to the next in the list, but cheer up, I will be back next round. So when I'm done this time you will not see everything addressed. That does NOT mean I rejected it. One more thing. I never revert except in cases of blatant vandalism so I will just look at and fix if necessary what is currently there. So, there is no need for an "edit war." Ordinarily I do not explain myself so much but for some reason this article is more of interest to people. Fine. I am sure some or all of your suggestions will work out just fine, provided they conform to WP policy. I am sure we will work together just fine. Until that day,Dave (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Botteville

message: botteville, do you know that those were two different peoples (who lived in the same territory) and that they were simply confused because of ancient authors' habit of using archaic ethica (forex every nomadic people was a hunnic and the medieval frenchmen were also called gauls by the bzantines) ? sorry but you did a wrong edit, of course the whole voice needs to be rewritten but that would be demanding and I have different priorities at present Cunibertus (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The references will tell, Cunibert, not you or I.Dave (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: a link mentioning en passant a difference between Opici and Osci 
"Antiochus,298 it is true, says that the Opici once lived in this country and that "they are also called Ausones," but Polybius clearly believes that they are two different tribes, for he says "the Opici and the Ausones live in this country round about the Crater." Again, others say that, although at first it was inhabited by the Opici, and also by the Ausones,299 later on it was taken by the Sidicini, an Oscan tribe,300 but the Sidicini were ejected by the Cumaei, and in turn the Cumaei by the Tyrrheni."
Cunibertus (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Osci and Opici

message: "Antichus, who was generally regarded as Thucydides' source for western history, later identified this tribe"
Who's he? When is later? What is "this tribe"? You got to be clear about these things if the sentence is to have any meaning anyone but you can understand.Dave (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. So we can work together. You didn't address the "later" however (yet). What is the point of this paragraph, do you know? We can't just leave it to the reader to guess.Dave (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we are not working together. I will give you until the end of this session to clarify this paragraph, then it is coming out, out, out. I'm not at all impressed by your trying slip my reference to Buck onto your paragraph. I took you for a serious editor. While we are at it, you like to write discussion but not to present your hypotheses with references in the article. I will discuss this no further. Come up with the references or get off the case. As far as your comments about the English being years behind the great Italians are concerned, sorry, unacceptable. And, for references, come up with Englich ones, please, unless it is totally unavoidable, which I do not believe. This is English WP. So far I've had a lot of words from you and a few unacceptable changes but no solid work of any kind. I'm trying hard not to conclude you are an angry young man trying to get even for something I removed. Well, I removed it because it was unreferenced. Come up with your references and make sure they are valid or quit wasting everyone's time.Dave (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What, who, when?

message: There are changes to some material I know I put in here but those changes do not appear in the history. For example, when I did the ref for Buck, I had the address for Internet Archive, and it says Internet Archive. But, the address was now that of a book-selling site. Only administrators have that power. It was probably done by bot. Well, Mr. phony administrator, I demand you resign from WP immediately. This is a serious effort here and you are supposed to be an officer. Resign, and right now!Dave (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Administrative vandalism

message: I don't think I am getting across here. When I question whether something is an allowable fact, I mean, and so does WP mean, we need a reference there, a book or article citation, or a location in an ancient author. You opinion is not a reference. Moreover, as opinions go, it does not clarify the paragraph in the slightest degree. We don't know what you are trying to say or why you are trying to say it. I'm considering that you probably are young and inexperienced with WP. This is why I am now suggesting you leave the article, read some WP policy, work on a few safer topics and come back when you are ready. I think that is a reasonable request. Right at this moment I cannot really grasp what your point about the Osci and Opici is, actually. Why don't you take a breather, write something coherent and when you are totally ready we can take a look at it. All I can really understand from you at the moment is, you don't like my removal of your unreferenced statement asserting the Osci and Opici were not the same people. Is that correct, do I have that right? Are you able to summarize the argument for us? Whose argument is it?Dave (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: err ... really at present I have other priorities then the Opici and Opsci (later known as Osci) - and I have other main interests in the period then this - so I wasn't interested in pursuing this controversy with you. But the distinction dates from the works of one of the italian leading scholars Giacomo Devoto who worked in the period 1930-70, so for the italian scholars this distinction is an old granted fact and I believed it was well known outside Italy due it is not exactly a recent development in the study of ancient peoples of Italy. Cunibertus (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're doing as bit better - I see some refs here, improperly formatted. That's all right, I will do some formatting. But, I have to understand your arguments. English vs Italian is going nowhere, so let's drop it. As for the time element - well, I got the same constraints. Whatever you DO do should be done right. If you spend 10 minutes, make it the very best 10 minutes you can muster. I don't see any value to putting in things that are wrong or incomrehensible, do you? We can go to Britannica for that. All right, let me look at it.Dave (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References not opinions

message: as your english is indoubtably better them mine I'll pass you some suggestion about the matter in an eventuality of an insertion by you in the voice
1. Strabo-Sicily-Ausones
Strabo was wrong, the Ausones had a minor importance in the History of Sicily as they colonized the Aeolian islands and then later settled on some areas of the northern coast of Sicily
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolian_Islands#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipari#Ancient_history
2. Ausones/Aurunci were part of a first wave (presumebly related to the Latins themselves according G. Devoto - as essentially historiography knows of only two italic waves the latin-faliscan first and the osco-umbrian then) of indo-european peoples who settled in Campania around 17-11th century BC. Around 9th century Oscan speaking populations (amongst them the later Osci) arrived and substantially oscanized the Ausones/Aurunci that still maintained a partially distinct identity. Cunibertus (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Cunibert. I'm having trouble understanding the point even of what you got here. What was Strabo wrong about? What are we trying to do? It seems to me ideally we ought to be covering the origin and provenience of the populus called Osci, which was obviously long gone by the late republic. You are like a drop of quicksilver, every time I try to put my finger on you, you slip out into droplets every which way. Besides that, the things about your technique that I know are wrong and must be wrong on the Italian WP also are, you quote without quotation marks, without attribution, and without listing the source from which you quote. And then, you try to use other sources that don't fit to cover the gap. To add to the problem, you think your own opinion is a source; that is, you don't understand what we are doing with the sources. This encyclopdia is NOT an opportunity to give your own unsourced opinions. And finally, when you do try to use sources you never get the formats right. Even though I keep saying these things I do not see any improvement. No, I stick by my suggestions to you given above. I'm almost done here for the moment. I notice the entire "conflict and subjugation" section has no sources at all. I would expect to find mention of some big war with a people called Osci or Opici but I'm not finding it. I'm going to keep looking in the hope that it is not imaginary. By the way, when you make such statements as "Strabo was wrong" or someone else was wrong, you have to have some justification for that other than your own opinion. How is he wrong? What evidence is there? Who says so? We can't take YOUR word for it. Ciao. Try not to mess up what we have so far.Dave (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Sure Bert, sure. Until such time as you learn how to play the WP game, try not to get in the way, will you? Are you responsible for that disaster called Italic peoples? That's on my list. I fear you and I will be constant companions from now on, at least on the Italic people articles. Ciao.Dave (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Pre-Roman times.
The area of what is now Salerno has been continuously settled since pre-historical times, although the first certain signs of human presence date to the period between the ninth and sixth centuries BC. We know the Oscan-Etruscans city of Irna (founded in the 6th century BC), situated across the Irno river, in today's Salernitan quarter of Fratte. This settlement represented an important base for Etruscan trade with the Greek colonies of Posidonia and Elea. It was occupied by the Samnites around the 5th century BC as consequence of the Battle of Cumae (474 BC) as part of the syracusan Sphere of influence. I just noticed we have looked to only the major oscan states (Ausones, Aurunci, Sidicini, Camapnians) on the South Latium/North Campania border but forgotten the less organized communities in Southern Campania, I've consequently upgraded the voice of Salerno with some details. Cunibertus (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: another oscan southern city was Pompeii:  The town was founded around the 7th-6th century BC by the Osci or Oscans, a people of central Italy, on what was an important crossroad between Cumae, Nola and Stabiae. It had already been used as a safe port by Greek and Phoenician sailors. According to Strabo, Pompeii was also captured by the Etruscans, and in fact recent excavations have shown the presence of Etruscan inscriptions and a 6th century BC necropolis. Pompeii was captured for the first time by the Greek colony of Cumae, allied with Syracuse, between 525 and 474 BC. In the 5th century BC, the Samnites conquered it (and all the other towns of Campania); the new rulers imposed their architecture and enlarged the town. After the Samnite Wars (4th century BC), Pompeii was forced to accept the status of socium of Rome, maintaining however linguistic and administrative autonomy. In the 4th century BC it was fortified. Pompeii remained faithful to Rome during the Second Punic War.Cunibertus (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See the map: Caserta is the territory of the Oscans, Naples is greek-oscan, Benevento/Beneventum and Avellino are Samnium, Salerno etruscan-oscan from the 9th to the 6th century and from the 5th under the rule of the Samnites but in the sphere of influence of the greek siceliotes. I hope this is useful for youCunibertus (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: approximatively the Aurunces and Ausones are in the north of Caserta occupying also part of southern Latium, the Campanians in the central-southern part of Caserta, the Sedicini in the eastern part of Caserta Cunibertus (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOUTHERN OSCANS