Talk:Praeneste fibula

message: I was looking closely at the first picture this article provides of the fibula and I noticed that there was a ':' bewteen FHE and FHAKED, which is also in accordance with what my syllabus says. As the ':' is the equivalent of a space in this inscription I'll adapt it.  
Vicimea (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: FHE FHAKED or FHEFHAKED?

message: Shouldn't the title of the article be Præneste fibula? 68.81.231.127 03:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter, ae is perfectly acceptable here (and anywhere really). Adam Bishop 03:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's title should probably match the name used in the text. 68.81.231.127 22:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: Wait, so the fibula is not a forgery? Granted, I've been out of Classics for a few years now, but last I heard it was still considered a fake. Is there any source in English that goes into this? (I'd rather not try my luck with the Italian. Or the German.) --Patrick T. Wynne 20:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I lack the knowledge to do this, but... THIRDED! --Liface (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a forgery?

message: Is there any reason that the Duenos Inscription was linked as Viminal Vessel here?  The actual artifact is the vessel, however, it is most often termed the "Duenos Inscription (Translation, Transcription, etc...)".  Please revert if my change was made hastily. Pheonix2og 11:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Viminal or Duenos

message: You don't need no expert to improve THIS article - but go ahead, see if you can find one. I removed "If the Praeneste fibula is a hoax, the true earliest surviving evidence of Latin is the Duenos Inscription, dated 100 years later to the 6th century BCE." These dates are somewhat arbitrary. Much as we would like precise dates archaeology does not offer any. So, opinions on which was first and when vary. But, but, this has nothing to do with the fibula, does it? In this article, who cares what artifact shall be the runner-up? That discussion should be under the candidates.Dave (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed statement

message: It seems as though the expert is still needed, or at least someone with the books and reports. There is just about nothing substantive on the Internet that you don't have to pay through the nose for on any other evidence other than the bad character reports.  Some of the Internet writers hint at scientific or laboratory studies and others about epigraphic studies, but no one is saying specifically what. I suppose they know something we don't know. This is somewhat unusual as most everything leaks onto the Internet in some form or other. Someone ought to have let something slip. I can't see how in essence "you're a known liar" proves much of anything but I sure am not going to put the money down to find out so I'm leaving this one for you, you altruistic man who knows the answer and wants no money for it.Dave (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert still needed

message: Florian pointed out to me that in 2011 scanning studies were performed on the brooch so recently there is no article in the technical journals yet. Italian science is all awhirl. I think we have enough to rewrite this article. If you are going to do it see . I changed my mind about the expert. Things have changed. It seems pretty clear what we are going to say. We need an archaeological history section that follows its discovery and presentation, the doubts that developed concerning its authenticity and finally the 2011 studies supporting its authenticity. We should mention the faithfuls and the reasons why they stayed faithful, such as Lehmann (he's gone now). Then we need to emphasize the siginificance of the date in determing how old Latin is. The fibula makes it older no doubt. Enjoy.Dave (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New developments

message: I feel uncomfortable with the way the recent finding of authenticity is unquestioningly accepted by this article.  Have the findings been published in a peer-reviewed journal?  All I see is a press release by the museum which houses the artefact.  Grover cleveland (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The newsletter (not a press release by any museum, to mind!) announces a (then upcoming) publication in the Bullettino del Paletnologia Italiano. If there remains any doubt that this has actually occurred, it should be easy to verify. Your scepticism appears so outlandish at this point that it approaches if not reaches conspiracy theorist level, and you could show your good faith by doing the legwork of checking the Bullettino. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to do as much "legwork" as I have time for, but, unfortunately, I don't have access to a university library.  I have not been able to confirm that the positive findings about the Fibula have been published in peer-reviewed form in the Bullettino del Paletnologia Italiano, or indeed anywhere else:  all I can find is the newsletter that is already quoted in the article.  Perhaps someone else with more access privileges (or better searching skills) can find it.  By the way, your statements about conspiracy theories seem pretty close to personal attacks; please also assume good faith, and appreciate that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.  The history of antiquities is rife with not only fraud and forgery, but also good-faith claims that were later retracted after peer review: as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia policy is to look for peer-reviewed publications wherever possible.  Thank you.  Grover cleveland (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Authenticity"