Fimbria Controversies (draft)

From Ancient Ways

Revision as of 03:12, 15 August 2007 (view source) Marius (Talk | contribs) (synchronized w/ NR Wiki entry) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 03:48, 16 August 2007 (view source) Marius (Talk | contribs) (NR Wiki policy on unpublished primary sources?) Next diff →
Line 48:		Line 48:
	==References==		==References==
	<references/>		<references/>
		+
		+	===Policy on Sources (by A Apollonius Cordus)===
		+
		+	'''Article on the ''rixa Fimbriana'''''
		+
		+	An interesting question. I'm almost certain that we have no policy. In my view there is no reason at all why you shouldn't use any material which is in your possession. That view stands on four legs.
		+
		+	First, I hold it as a general principle that a person who doesn't want it known that he has said something shouldn't say it in the first place.
		+
		+	Secondly, to give someone a veto over any attempt to quote words which he himself has said, even many years ago, would be totally inimical to a well-informed public, to a thriving academic life, and to a free press.
		+
		+	Thirdly, secrecy is essentially alien to the political and social culture of the ancient Roman republic, which was characterized by probably the most transparent government the world has ever known.
		+
		+	Fourthly, most modern legal systems of which I am aware, not to mention the ancient Roman legal system, place minimal restrictions on the publication of private correspondence, limited only to cases in which the correspondents have a right to expect privacy and there is a strong public interest in upholding that right, for example in confidential communications between lawyer and client or between doctor and patient.
		+
		+	So I say go for it.
		+
		+	(This does, however, raise an interesting practical point about whether, and to what extent, we should be publishing primary sources on the website itself. So far the tendency has been to link to primary sources off-site, except for the texts of leges and other documents which essentially belong to the people because the people, or the people's officers, made them in the first place. But now we're talking about primary sources which aren't available on other websites, and I can't see any reason why we shouldn't house them on this website, at least as an experiment. We may have to play around with how much quotation of primary sources we have in main articles and how much we keep on separate pages. Come to think of it, photographs are also primary sources of a kind, and we have quite a few of those on here already.)
		+
		+	- Cordus 00:05, 14 August 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	:I've got two for you already: The issue of the Nova Roma Eagle in which Palladius and Sulla give their side of the story...and a rather pointy e-mail I sent to a friend who needed my end explained. Encyclopediae do quote primary sources...but our article could easily become an 'oral history', and I'm not sure if you want that. -- Marius Peregrinus 22:38, 14 August 2007 (CEST)

---

Revision as of 03:48, 16 August 2007

(This is a draft of the article I am currently putting together on the Gender Wars for the Nova Roma Wiki.)

Contents 1 Background 2 Template:1998 3 Template:2000 4 Template:2007 5 References 5.1 Policy on Sources (by A Apollonius Cordus)

Background

Template:1998

An individual with long-time gender identity questions, who had been known in Roman circles for over seven years as Lucius Marius Fimbria, became interested in Nova Roma. This individual, after some indecision (chiefly religious), applied for and was granted citizenship as "Lucia Maria Fimbria", as this person was a woman in appearance, and wanted to avoid any awkwardness in the event of a face-to-face meeting. This citizen otherwise functioned as a male, both within and without Nova Roma. All of this citizen's written contributions were as Lucius Marius Fimbria. This citizen was referred to by fellow-cives in the masculine.

Template:2000

Lucius Marius, having come to realise in the meantime that he was in fact transgendered, wished to have his entry in the Album Civium reconciled with the rest of his Roman life and Nova Roman experience. He regarded his condition in Roman terms as his having been born with a genius rather than a iuno for a guiding spirit, and felt that it was less important for his Roman name to be consistent with outward appearances than for it to be true to his soul. He requested that his registered Roman name be changed to reflect this more developed understanding of his being.

Lucius Marius Fimbria regarded this action as a simple request for correction of records. The administration regarded it as a trivialisation of Nova Roma, potentially fostering the perception that it was nothing more than an online role-playing game. This was a common concern at the time, as the Republic was young and still striving for respectability in the Roman world at large. Allowing a citizen to change official gender on little more than his or her say-so was seen as detrimental to this effort. Too, many in leadership were uncomfortable with the whole idea of transgenderism, and were not receptive to Marius' explanations.

• Controversy ensued.

Template:2007

Censors M. Octavius Gracchus and C. Fabius Buteo Modianus issued the following edict:

Aldus Marius Peregrinus replied in a likewise reconciliatory manner. <ref>http://www.societasviaromana.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=10444</ref>

References

<references/>

Policy on Sources (by A Apollonius Cordus)

Article on the rixa Fimbriana

An interesting question. I'm almost certain that we have no policy. In my view there is no reason at all why you shouldn't use any material which is in your possession. That view stands on four legs.

First, I hold it as a general principle that a person who doesn't want it known that he has said something shouldn't say it in the first place.

Secondly, to give someone a veto over any attempt to quote words which he himself has said, even many years ago, would be totally inimical to a well-informed public, to a thriving academic life, and to a free press.

Thirdly, secrecy is essentially alien to the political and social culture of the ancient Roman republic, which was characterized by probably the most transparent government the world has ever known.

Fourthly, most modern legal systems of which I am aware, not to mention the ancient Roman legal system, place minimal restrictions on the publication of private correspondence, limited only to cases in which the correspondents have a right to expect privacy and there is a strong public interest in upholding that right, for example in confidential communications between lawyer and client or between doctor and patient.

So I say go for it.

(This does, however, raise an interesting practical point about whether, and to what extent, we should be publishing primary sources on the website itself. So far the tendency has been to link to primary sources off-site, except for the texts of leges and other documents which essentially belong to the people because the people, or the people's officers, made them in the first place. But now we're talking about primary sources which aren't available on other websites, and I can't see any reason why we shouldn't house them on this website, at least as an experiment. We may have to play around with how much quotation of primary sources we have in main articles and how much we keep on separate pages. Come to think of it, photographs are also primary sources of a kind, and we have quite a few of those on here already.)

- Cordus 00:05, 14 August 2007 (CEST)

I've got two for you already: The issue of the Nova Roma Eagle in which Palladius and Sulla give their side of the story...and a rather pointy e-mail I sent to a friend who needed my end explained. Encyclopediae do quote primary sources...but our article could easily become an 'oral history', and I'm not sure if you want that. -- Marius Peregrinus 22:38, 14 August 2007 (CEST)