Talk:Alexiad

Untitled

Why was this moved? It's usually known as "The Alexiad" in English. (The Penguin edition is called "The Alexiad of Anna Comnena.") Adam Bishop 22:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. Should it be moved back? Srnec 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...it doesn't really matter I guess. We have things like Shahnameh which are also usually called "the Shahnameh". Adam Bishop 21:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I apologise for undoing and re-adding my contribution. Originally, I had forgotten to sign in before adding the text. I clearly want to always contribute under my own alias.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad grammar results in ambiguous meaning

"In spite of this, the work doesn't lack of vivid fast-pacing narration......" The meaning is unclear. Does the writer mean "the work lacks vivid...." or "the work doesn't lack vivid...."? Who knows, flip a coin. Using "doesn't" is rather too informal for an encyclopaedia.

"They also suggest of a very broad education..." That's not grammatical either - perhaps the writers means "They also suggest a very broad education..." which is better but still not very good. 80.3.41.182 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like acceptable grammar in some other language, translated too literally into English. Or very archaic English. It's easy to understand though; just remove the "of"s. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are so right. I removed the archaisms. Also converted "doesn't" to "does not". More polishing is needed, a native speaker would be essential for that task. Dipa1965 (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What is 'self-confidence' in writing supposed to mean?

"Her interest in military tactics and positive sciences and the level of self-confidence in her writing abilities are amazing for a woman of that period (or even later)." How is 'self-confidence' in writing measured...? and what is the veiled meaning of "(or even later)" in this statement? Did this contributor mean to imply that women writers lack self-confidence? Seems like an incredibly weighted statement for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.236.66 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First female historian

This claim is dubious and completely unsourced. Ban Zhao was a major female historian that preceded her by a millenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.110.243 (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I have seen it in an non-English source but, since I can't remember where, the claim is dubious and I will remove it.--Dipa1965 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It was stated in a review of Anna Komnene and Her Times by James Howard-Johnston published in Sept. 2002, but without citation and so I was skeptical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.222.46 (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael Psellos

The article suggests that Michael Psellos was Anna Comnene's mentor. I doubt that would have been possible since he had likely died before she was born, or perhaps a little later. His work may have influenced her writing, but he could not have been her mentor. AlexiosGirl (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

is this article a result of one of feminist raids on wiki?

they encourage raids like this/ i just dunno, parts of it need complete rewriting... i deleted one of the most ridiculous claims that historians who note her lamentation of not being an empress succeeding her father are 'misogynist'. the unbiasedness of this article is questionable as it is 94.154.66.240 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Those dastardly feminists! Did you read the work that was referenced there? I haven't either, but I would imagine that it is criticizing modern historians (old stuffy men, no doubt) for presenting Anna as some sort of shrew scheming for a throne she didn't deserve. But let's see if we can find the reference first... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Aha, indeed, the referenced article says "generations of scholars have recreated this story, using familiar topoi about women’s psychology to craft a picture of Anna as woman with a vexed relationship to imperial power." Examples are provided going all the way back to Nicetas Choniates. It's a pretty interesting article, it's on JSTOR, if you have access to that. No insidious feminist plot, though I expect if you are predisposed to see those everywhere, this will not convince you otherwise. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the anonymous editor. Where is the misogyny we are discussing here? Removed reference was a marginal over-feminist view.--Dipa1965 (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, who would want a feminist view of one of the earliest women writers. That would be crazy. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Nah, I think the last thing we need here is contemporary pro-feminist or misogynistic partizanship, projected in pre-modern times. Thank you.--Dipa1965 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Great, it's another current century academic who colours history with current century concerns and doesn't see any problem with that. People of future centuries will just discard such work as garbage that says more about the people who wrote it than the purported subject, while in the meantime common folks must figure out how much of what you write should be discarded as worthless ivory tower current century orthodoxy. This is what I do when I read this article, I'm forced to wonder how much of it comes from a gender studies dissertation. The offending section was dumped in there in one block, maybe something should be done about it, it really comes of as dissertation copy-paste, which turns out it is. Its author introduced it on his sandbox as "Below is my work for my Medieval Women class, Spring 2013, concerning the Alexiad.". Note that the French version of this article is much lengthier yet doesn't suffer from gender studies-speak. --90.156.104.160 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Per Adam Bishop, we just follow the WP:RS - everything else is just noise. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Maintenance Template?

Can we remove the Maintenance Template yet? Or at least scale it back? Does this article still lack citation or NPOV? The notice has been there for almost 5 years, and the article looks quite different from back then. The tone and research are quite, quite different from back then, so I suggest deleting it. Any consensus? --Akhenaten0 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Anything? Another ten days and I'll remove it myself. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Knobri3 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Knobri3 (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)