Talk:Alfeios

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Rivers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Apart from the last bit about bloodlines, the whole "western estoric" section is without references, which I've tagged. The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail will not be acceptable as a reliable source for this supposedly historical information, as it is pseudohistory. Is there another source? Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone familiar with The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail knows that the elements of the book which are pseudohistorical are mostly the ones that deal with their speculation about the pre-1956 Priory of Sion and the Jesus bloodline. That being said, I am in the process of searching for reliable sources for the historical information regarding René of Anjou and the theme of Arcadia. --Loremaster (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is accepted by mainstream historians then you won't have any trouble finding reliable sources for it. However, it still seems very backwards to me to write a section that paraphrases a dodgy source without making the source of the material explicit, and then go looking for other sources to back it up. Why not just flag the whole section as questionable material specifically from that questionable source? Also, the size of the section seems out of proportion with the material on the actual river. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have read the historical information regarding René of Anjou and the theme of Arcadia in several reliable sources over the years so I know that the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail were not simply making stuff up. I simply need the time to find those sources. As for the size of that section, I think its normal that it would seem out of proportion with the actual river since there isn't much that can be said about a river... --Loremaster (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the section to make it clear that it is all, at present, sourced from The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. I've also edited it down to just what's relevant to the river. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. --Loremaster (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth is this article named "Alfeios"? Alpheios, which correctly reflects the Greek spelling, is by far the most common form in references (as you can see by searching Google Books), and it should be the entry form here. Languagehat (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can confirm this as fact with a reliable source, feel free to move the page. --Loremaster (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer this though over 10 years late. The critic asserts the traditional English scholarly dogma of using ph for phi. That is the one most likely to show up in Google books, since anything they let you see is likely to be old. But now, there is a significant body of Greek scholarship by persons fluent in both English and Greek and it seems to me they want to be more phonetic in their transliteration of names. One phi, one f. The traditional dogma overdoes it, putting words back in ancient form so that unless you know both modern and ancient Greek very well you can not know what they are talking about. OK, we know you Oxford classicists are very smart. So what. How's that help us? Educating the common man is the name of the game. I noticed this article was saying nothing, based on the 1/3 of an EB article they let you see. I'm interested in updating it somewhat.Botteville (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's only going to mystify people further to spell a name like this with "f" – one sees the formal reason, but "ph" is so well established (in Wikipedia as elsewhere) that it just comes across as weird and a bit provocative, very similar to George Bernard Shaw's failed spelling reforms (nor do I notice the modern Greeks abandoning the use of η and υ on the grounds that ι is quite sufficient): these things are just conventions, and there is a very clear convention in the English language. We do not write "New York" as "Noo York", "Moscow" as "Moskva" or "Finland" as "Suomi". This article certainly needs to be retitled. Deipnosophista (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and it has some validity. But, I don't agree about the conventions.For one thing, Middle English, the source of what are now called the English languages (not just the dialects of English) left us with quite a number of variant spellings, which the Oxford establishment has tried very hard but unsuccessfuly to replace with standard. People don't talk that way. Second, this phoneticization is going on right under your nose all the time, especially in names of Celtic origin. It is apparent in names of all sorts. In New England and the Maritime provinces this is painfully apparent to us supposedly educated folk (I say, supposedly). For example, Greeno for Greenough. The spoken language eventually makes itself felt despite the current spelling. How long do you think Gloucester is going to carry the unpronounced ce for the sake of a Roman camp? We already have no idea what Glou was. Be that as it may, I doubt your view is Wikipedian or universal. We aren't the fully empowered French or Spanish Academy and I doubt there is one in English. But, I can only repeat the final word before I spoke ten years later, if you can get the consensus and the interest, go right ahead, strike a blow for standard English. It might be more work than you are willing to put in. You would advertise for a consensus here and then once obtained request an article name change. Then to do it right you would have to search every Alfeios in the encyclopedia and change it to Alpheios (why not just the 18th century Alph?) Who dares, wins, or fortune favore the brave. Have you got the passion?Botteville (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A wide range of catchment areas of the Alfeios are given in this article, with the most outlying figure being the 868.6 km2 added on 4 June 2021 by @Botteville, based on this article by Skoulikidis et al.. If I read this Skoulikidis article correctly, the 868.6 km2 (nr. 32 in the table at page 214) refers to the catchment area of the Alfeios at Karytaina, on 307 m elevation, see the legend of figure 1 on page 207. So that's upstream from the Alfeios's major tributaries Lousios, Ladon and Erymanthos. The number I found for the complete catchment area in this report, page 38 is 3810 km2. If you agree, let's update the article accordingly. Markussep ^Talk 13:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice work if true. Are you not used to updating articles? I was on this one many months ago but I got off onto other related material that needed work more pressingly. I did and do intend to get back to it but I cannot ask all of you to wait until I do. Go ahead, fix it. Botteville (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I couldn't access the Tsangaratos article, so I hope I attributed all statements to the correct articles. Markussep ^Talk 19:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my copy of the Britannica (1993) says that is the longest, not the largest of the Peloponnesus as stated in the text. Of course, I am italian and my undestanding that longest and largest are not synonymous may be wrong.

If you are interested, I may copy here some curious info from two books of 1850-1910 (Lubker, Lessico Classico and Wmith, Cyclopedia). 151.29.133.9 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]