Talk:Lutescens

message: ? Alexander 007 08:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I have returned from Sevilla and I have the reference as I promised. The book is: Titchener, J.B. (1926), "Synopsis of Greek and Roman Civilization", Cambridge MA. The paragraph says: 
"There are also Aeolian sources pertaining to a Lutescan language spoken in the Hellespontica area of Mysia. Although information on this language is sparse, it is possible that it may have been an Anatolian language, owing to certain phonetic similarities. The people who spoke it were largely nomadic, only settling on the shores of Lake Artynia ca. 1200BC. It is not thought that they reached as far as the southern Pergamene area, although this may have been possible. Once settled they were soon absorbed into the neighbouring Phrygian culture and the language died out, leaving very little trace. It is thought to have had little, if any, influence on the Phrygian language."  
I hope this resolves this argument. The book is very rare and this is probably why it was not referenced before. Until next time I will try to find more sources and refernces to this language. Jordi25 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it establishes that Lutescan isn't a hoax. I'm still not convinced that enough information about Lutescan is verifiable to warrant having an encyclopedia article about it though. Titchener doesn't say which Aeolian sources mention Lutescan, doesn't give any words to back up the claim of "phonetic similarity" with Anatolian languages. If this is all the information you find about Lutescan, I'm for going back to a redirect to Mysia. —Angr 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work on the source. Indeed, this establishes that the article isn't a hoax. However, I'm still of the opinion that we should be very careful; see Wikipedia:Fact laundering for possible problems. Like Angr, I'm not sure whether this kind of information is enough to warrant a separate article. Maybe a mention in Mysia would be enough, especially considering the fact that we almost surely are not going to be able to find more info on Lutescan. — mark ✎ 09:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the Wikipedia has other articles about ancient languages about which virtually nothing is known, e.g. Philistine language, Trojan language, etc. So, I vote to let this stay. And, frankly, I never thought for a minute this might be a hoax.  Pasquale 18:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather see Philistine language redirected to Philistines and discussed there, and Trojan language redirected to Troy and discussed there. Indeed, the Philistine language is already discussed at Philistines#Philistine language, so a separate article is just redundant. —Angr 18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Angr, I might even agree with you on those calls. In any case, I have nothing to do with those two pages being there — I was just giving you two random examples of dubious or marginal languages that have articles. I am sure there are more.  Pasquale 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are comparing apples to oranges. There are many references about Trojan language and about Philistine language. Also, multitude of references about Trojan and Philistine people. However, it seems there is only a single source about both Lutescan language and the people who spoke it. So, this could be a side note on Mysia article, but not an article on its own. Also, the only reference has been checked only by a user who has not contributed in any other way to wikipedia... --83.32.69.154 01:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, dear anonymous, I can tell you this. Were it not for this reference in the Wikipedia, I would never have heard about those references to a Lutescan people and a Lutescan language in Aeolian sources, and so I am extremely grateful to whoever added those references in the Wikipedia. This happens to be of great interest to me, precisely because I had recently been looking at the ancient languages of Mysia and Bithynia (there are several different layers of them, although all of them very poorly attested). To me, this is what an encyclopedia is for. But evidently, you think an encyclopedia should only contain information that is of interest to you.   Pasquale 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your answer at all. I was not advocating to remove any reference to Lutescan language or people, but for merging it to Mysia article. In fact, if you read WP:N you'll see that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" and that "Information which is given only superficial treatment or which is tangentially mentioned in discussions surrounding the actual focus of a work, is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject". So, I dont know if this is not what an encyclopedia is for, to you, but it is what THIS encyclopedia is. --81.39.168.119 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I had understood you correctly. In principle, I have no objection to removing the article while keeping all the references to "Lutescan language" within the article on Mysia. But, in an on-line encyclopedia based entirely on links, someone inevitably will want to click on those references to "Lutescan language" to find out more about it, and will be surprised to see that there is no link, and so will add a link going nowhere, and then someone will create an article duplicating the information contained in the Mysia article, and then you will propose deleting it again. Why not avoid this unnecessary vicious cycle by leaving things as they are now?  Pasquale 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Lutescan language becomes a redirect to Mysia, then people will find the information they're looking for and no one will be tempted to start a new article unnecessarily. —Angr 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the possibility that de source "Synopsis of Greek and Roman Civilization" isn't real. The only attestation of a book of J. B. Titchener I have found is Moralia: Libelli 15-23, Regum Et Imperatorum Apophthegmata, Apophthegmata Laconica, Mulierum Virtutes, Aetia Romana Et Graeca, Parallela Minora, De Fortuna. I think it is not currently proved that the reference is not a hoax.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.132.53 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: REFERENCE FOUND!

message: The only reference in this article (Titchener, J.B. (1926), "Synopsis of Greek and Roman Civilization", Cambridge MA) was added by User:Jordi25 who claims it is very rare. He begins by saying "I ask for the apologies, my English is not good." Looking at his contribs, he didn't edit for 4 years and then created a fairly negative biography of a controversial British political figure, in perfect English. Whilst I'd like to assume good faith, alarm bells are ringing here, especially as the IP above casts doubt on whether this Titchener book exists. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching library catelogues online also reveals no mentions of this book.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus the the Spanish and Catalan versions have already been deleted as probably hoaxes. *Strokes chin*   --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The University of Sevilla has no such book in its online catalog, it only has this one. It's not either in the unified catalog of all Catalan universities. Zero hits in google books, google sholar and normal google. The Canbridge catalog search has no books authored by "Titchener" . I am prodding this article as an unsource hoax. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

text: actually, lutescans in binominal names seems to be a misspelling for lutescens, e.g. Caiman lutescens. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Do you have any evidence that Titchener and his book existed, though?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: no, I am working on assumptions of probability. We can drop the Mysian item and still keep the lutescans redirect to lutescens and disambiguate terms there. What we need to delete though is Lutescan language, I'll place a prod there. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

text: actually, google books is aware of the book and dates it to 1925.. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Hmm yes, this says he was a classicist, alive 1898-1972.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If this name was only mentioned once in one tiny source, then it's probably not notable enough to list it in the Lutescens disambiguation page? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so, it looks like it wasn't a hoax, but a good-faith editor that didn't know that it was just a borked name. I am going to re-prod as non-notable/non-significant, just to set the record straight. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax tag