Talk:Mills of God

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mills of God article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Sybelline Oracle[edit]

We have a minor dispute about the dating of the Sybelline Oracle entry. I checked this out in detail. The source seems learned and it's consistent with what our article about that work says. The previous entry of c. 5th century is quite different and so we either need to settle this or just remove the dating. Andrew D. (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be the place to discuss the date of the Sybilline Oracles. I have just gone to the relevant article and developed it a little bit.

So, since you have already researched this in detail, please cite explicitly what Cox (1910) said regarding the year 211. Is this an article about an Irish translation of the proverb? If so, why not cite the Irish version also? Is your 211 date supposed to date the entire book 8? Or does it purport to date 8.15 specifically? How?

Also, what is your "dispute" tag in reference to? As you see, I did not restore the "5th century" date, which was supposed be a short abbreviation of the discussion at the main article, not a positive claim. I don't see what is "disputed" in the current revision of the article. --dab (𒁳) 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also "researched this in detail": meaning, I have found and read Collins (2010:416): "The date of [book 8] verses 1–216 can be fixed with some precision ... must have been written before [...] A.D. 180 [...] compatible with a date about A.D. 175." So if you insist on specifying a date, I would suggest "c. 175". But please explain how the astonishingly precise "211" has been arrived at. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding in detail. My own interest in the matter arises from having started the page as Retribution (poem) and so I naturally want to follow its development. I am generally quite gratified by this expansion and so, if we should differ about some detail, please understand that I'm trying to help rather than hinder this work. Now to the specific points raised:

Thanks for your work on the Sibylline Oracles page. I myself also find that such tangents inspire related development. For example, I made a small improvement to the edge mill page to record the source I used while checking that aspect. My general experience of Wikipedia is that too few editors go to such lengths and so I applaud this diligence.
The Cox article can be read in its entirety at the URL provided in the citation – click on the Download PDF button to get the entire article. The article seems a good source for this topic as it traces the history of the aphorism in a similar way to the current version. The Irish version didn't seem especially important though, as the conclusion is that it was probably inspired by Longfellow's poem. The article doesn't explain exactly where the 211 date comes from – it's given in a footnote, citing Friedlieb.
The current version gives the history of the aphorism and so it's good to have a date so that the chronology can be put in the right order. As we now have a better detailed source for the revised date of c. 175 then that seems a good result.

Andrew D. (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]