Talk:Lucian

message: i changed somethings becuase they were factuially wrong e.g Samosata was in turkey not syria and i changed some other things becuase they were copy and pasted from sites clearly indicating non-negotiable copyright clauses. (Anon. edit from [[User:159.92.101.19)
:Samosata was not in "Turkey" in the 2nd century. Similarly, the following is a 20th century concern: His ethnicity is believed to have been Kurdish due to the fact that Commagene the kingdom in which his birthplace was located was a Kurdish state and due to his description of his Suran descent (Soran are one of the main dialectical groupings of the Kurds). Can we have the passage where Lucian speaks of his own ethnicity? it would make a goiod quote to introduce this above text. --Wetman 20:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the category Syrian people as he did refer to himself as Syrian.Yuber(talk) 04:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust that few readers of this page are unaware of Syria as a province of the Roman Empire, as our anonymous contributor above appears to be. Such purely modern contentions over ethnicity generally reveal primitive misunderstandings about history and a desire to apply "spin". --Wetman 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I like to urge the editors on this article to look in Lucian book "Goddess of Syria", where he stated that he is an "Assourious", that translate to Assyrian not Syrian. I propose that I change "Syrian" to the proper "Assyrian" by 10/25/06 if no one else has any objections. --Esarhaddon 01:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I found this right here in his own testimony; []  I write as an Assyrian born  Chaldean 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I notice that this article has nothing on Lucian's important work, The Way to Write History. I'm not very good at writing encyclopaedic articles so if someone else could add a description and brief analysis/evaluation of the work and its significance in understanding ancient historiography, I would appreciate it. Mr. Alcibiades 17:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Way to Write History 

message: From el-wiki:
=== Rhetorics ===
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
=== Dialogues===
1. Satirical dialogues:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2. Philosophical dialogues:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Satires of philosophers' biographies:
*
*
*
*
3.  (dialogues between hetaeras):
*
*
4. Other "scoffy" dialogues (written during the last years of his life when he signed as Lycinus - Λυκῖνος):
*
*
*
*
*
=== Epistles ===
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
=== Novels ===
*
*
=== Pseudo-Lucianus ===
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Methinks that his full ergography should be included in the article. Omnipedian (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have this at List of works by Lucian (linked in this article). --Folantin (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I kinda missed that. However, I think that the catalogue above is still useful as an alternative paradigm of how his ergography can be represented (alternative to the mainstream Oxford Classical Texts (OCT) one, I mean). OCT-order may be better from a scholarly point of view, but it is a bit inaccesible (whatever that means) for someone not familiar with this style of non-genre based catalogography (just making an observation, not a serious point!). --Omnipedian (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be unnecessary duplication since we already have an entire page dedicated to his works (which took me quite a long time to set up). Also, ordering his works by genre is going to be controversial. As Sidwell writes, "Outside of the small number of works which fall into established rhetorical genres [...] it is extremely difficult to categorize Lucian's writings effectively according to form or theme." --Folantin (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Works

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Methinks that his full ergography should be included in the article. Omnipedian (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have this at List of works by Lucian (linked in this article). --Folantin (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I kinda missed that. However, I think that the catalogue above is still useful as an alternative paradigm of how his ergography can be represented (alternative to the mainstream Oxford Classical Texts (OCT) one, I mean). OCT-order may be better from a scholarly point of view, but it is a bit inaccesible (whatever that means) for someone not familiar with this style of non-genre based catalogography (just making an observation, not a serious point!). --Omnipedian (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be unnecessary duplication since we already have an entire page dedicated to his works (which took me quite a long time to set up). Also, ordering his works by genre is going to be controversial. As Sidwell writes, "Outside of the small number of works which fall into established rhetorical genres [...] it is extremely difficult to categorize Lucian's writings effectively according to form or theme." --Folantin (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-Lucianus 

message: His Greek name, Λουκιανός, isn't that simply the Latin name spelled with Greek letters? Would that have been his original Greek name? __meco (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some Greeks adopted Roman names.  The writer of the Gospel of Mark had a Roman name. AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek name 

message: I have reverted this edit that changed his ethnicity to Assyrian based on an article from an Assyrian Newsnetwork ([http://www.aina.org/articles/assyrianidentity.pdf link). While the scholarship presented in that article may be sound (I am not qualified to judge), it is also stated that the view that he self-represents as Assyrian is against common academic consensus (p. 17: "This self-identification is commonly misinterpreted to imply nothing more than that these writers were ethnic Syrians (in the modern sense) speaking Aramaic as their mother tongue (Millar 1993, 460)". So until this view becomes common academic consensus, it should be presented as a minority view, that is explicitly stating that it is the view of Simo Parpola, not presented as generally accepted fact. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Folantin (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucian himself said "I that write [this] am "Assourious" [Assyrian]". See Lucian, Translated by A.M. Harmon, Vol. IV, "The goddess of Surrye", London 1925 p.339. So it's not just Parpola who is stating that, Lucian himself explicitly wrote it and his own words should not just be ignored. And your source is from 1971, i.e. 40 years old compared to Parpola's article that was published 2004. Kaldaya (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All I am saying is that the discussion regarding "Syrian" and "Assyrian" is still ongoing, and this should be reflected in the lede. You could perhaps change the wording to express this. "His ehtnicity is disputed and is attributed as Assyrian according to ... and Syrian according to ..." or something like that. It seems this 1992 article by a Richard N. Frye is the disputed item. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon Swain spends about ten pages discussing the issue in Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism and Power in the Greek World AD 50-250 (page 298ff.). As far as I can tell from a quick reading, he doesn't come to any definite conclusions, but says Lucian was probably Semitic and may have spoken Aramaic. In Lucian, the terms "Syrian" and "Assyrian" appear to be interchangeable (see p.299 and, esp. footnote). --Folantin (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, since it's disputed, let's make a compromise. Kaldaya (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine (though my example was just a rough outline and could possibly need some smoothing in the wording). Also, I wouldn't mind a separate paragraph in the article (not in the lede), going into more detail about both sides of the argument regarding the interpretation of the word. Especially since the lede would possibly make readers wonder what the dispute is all about. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Syrian and Assyrian refer to the same ethnic group historically speaking. One shouldn't confuse them with the modern Syrian Arab Republic. I will keep "Syrian" as ethnicity but will redirect it to Assyrian people.--Rafy talk 01:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assyrian 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lucian. 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/20110717071922/http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.pdf to http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.pdf
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) 06:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lucian. 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/20130927132430/http://www.gendercentre.org.au/resources/polare-archive/archived-articles/a-classical-ftm.htm to http://www.gendercentre.org.au/resources/polare-archive/archived-articles/a-classical-ftm.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) 02:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I do not necessarily object to this change, but I will point out that the article clearly says that Lucian wrote exclusively in Ancient Greek in the very next sentence, which is the second sentence of the article. It therefore seems rather unnecessary and redundant to describe Lucian as "ancient Greek-speaking" in the first sentence when the second sentence already goes into greater detail explaining that he was a native speaker of Syriac but wrote exclusively in Ancient Greek. —Katolophyromai (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I should have read better again. Actually I started to modify the intro while working on a list of ancient Greek writers, because I noticed the article on Lucian/Lukianos doesn't fit in the common style for writers on WP, i.e. "Franz Kafka (3 July 1883 – 3 June 1924) was a German-speaking Bohemian novelist [...]" / Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (/ˌdɒstəˈjɛfski, ˌdʌs-/; Russian: Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский, tr. Fyódor Mikháylovich Dostoyévskiy; 11 November 1821 – 9 February 1881), sometimes transliterated Dostoyevsky, was a Russian novelist [...] / "Sappho (/ˈsæfoʊ/; Aeolic Greek Ψάπφω Psáppho; c. 630 – c. 570 BC) was an Archaic Greek poet from the island of Lesbos [...]". That said, it's not really a big deal, just an unusual style to me when I was switching from one article to another. Azerty82 (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perfectly fine. Honestly, I probably would not have said anything if it were not for the fact that the subject of Lucian's national identity has attracted a great deal of controversy here in the past. I was somewhat concerned that mentioning the fact that he wrote in Greek multiple times in the first paragraph might come across to some people as a nationalistic attempt to assert a Greek identity for him, which I was concerned might lead to yet another controversy. I am glad we were able to resolve this issue without conflict. :) —Katolophyromai (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ancient Greek-speaking" added to first sentence 

message: I have revised the part about Lucian mentioning Jesus in his On the Passing of Peregrinus to read as follows:
"The speaker in the letter also refers to an individual whom he calls 'Christ', whom he characterizes as the founder of Christianity. The speaker claims that this 'Christ' lived in Palestine just over a century prior, that he taught that his followers would attain immortality, and that he was crucified."
Someone would have to be really creative to come up with an excuse for how this description could refer to anyone other than Jesus. Nonetheless, Yabroq has a fair point that Lucian doesn't actually use the name "Jesus," so, for the sake of this article, I have decided it the best compromise to simply state what Lucian himself says. My guess is that any educated reader will be able to easily tell who Lucian is talking about. —Katolophyromai (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jesus reference