Talk:Sacred fire of Vesta

The whole thing looks a bit flaky to me. Is this really objective fact? m.e. 12:30, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tesla

This

doesn't belong in this article. If it belongs in an encyclopedia at all, it should go in Tesla's article. -- Nunh-huh 04:57, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes it does ... Reinstated. It's detail about hypothesized ancient tech ... by someone that knew what he was talking about concerning plasma. JDR

No it doesn't. It's now in his article, not here. -- Nunh-huh

It belongs here .... it's tangential to that article ... but directly applicabnle here! JDR

Tesla's thoughts on the fire of Vesta are neither an important nor an essential part of the history of the subject. - Nunh-huh 06:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tesla's thoughts on the fire of Vesta are important for analysis of the topic. I will be adding other part to the anaylsis section as time permits, It may not be an "essential" part of the history of the subject, pending your POV. JDR

The Tesla bit might be worth a one-sentence mention at best, but not an entire section. That should go somewhere else, perhaps with a link, but it really sounds ... bad ... here. Summarize it in once sentence; it's a side-track that by its length makes the whole article really confusing. It says much more about Tesla than it does about the fire of Vesta. --DanielCD 15:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From WP:CU

Sacred fire of Vesta - much irrelevant info need cutting

- I don't really see the problem, not much irrelevant there. towo

The "Analysis" section looks a bit wobbly. There is a sneaky diffusion theory in there, and the Tesla stuff isn't all that vital to the subject of the Romans. Geogre 13:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What "sneaky diffusion theory"? I'm adding in the external links again. JDR 18:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The external links you keep re-adding mention Vesta only in passing and should not be here. - Nunh-huh 20:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some opf the external links I keep re-adding mention Vesta in passing ... others do not.... and they all should be here. It is the aggregate of the information. Readding. JDR

Erm, let's have a look, shall we?

• "A Roman priest might be a flamen, one who blew the flame [Latin flare is to blow]. The Vestal Virgins, who tended the holy fire in the temple of Vesta in Rome, tended the life and soul of the city and of the body politic on the hearth of the temple of Vesta, the Greek Hestia."
• "To build and maintain a temple such as that of Hestia in Athens, or of Vesta in Rome, containing fire, tended by Vestal Virgins or by a flamen, blower of the fire [flare is to blow], was a way of persuading a deity to make the temple its permanent home and to continue to protect the city or persons concerned."
• "Perhaps the zilch eterau was in charge of the Vestal Virgins."
• When Metellus saved it from the burning temple of Vesta he was blinded."

That's all about Vesta in the whole thing. Should we start adding EVERY occurence of, say, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, like where the phrase "tumbling down the rabbit hole" is used? You've got to be kidding. -- towo 21:57, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

The Vesta search is nice but not "the whole thing". Your strawman argument on if addition of "EVERY" occurence of, say, [insert preferred asinine phrase] .... doesn't hold. If the the entire reference is read, a reader may understand that "divine fire" implications. And I will be adding the above specific contents.

JDR 22:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain: this article is about the Sacred fire of Vesta. You do not need or want general information about a divine fire (hint, hint) here. It's not part of the whole thing. An encyclopedia states fact relating to a subject; sure, the divine fire is relating, but, in the extent of vague connection you are practicing, should be considered having an article on its own. -- towo 23:10, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

Explain? This is Sacred fire of Vesta. An encyclopedia states all the facts relating to a subject. The divine fire is related. Sacred fire of Vesta an instance of this. The general information is needed here. JDR [PS., I may have to starts a divine fire article]

Those references have no relevance to this article. Anyone following the links is more likely to think "why did Wikipedia link me here?" than "My, why wonderful information about the Sacred fire of Vesta". Please stop adding them. - Nunh-huh 19:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The references have relevance to this article. Vesta was the so-called "fire" (the ancients "thought" it was the goddess, and they were well aquianted with normal fire (which this was different from)). JDR

Those references have no relevance to this article. Anyone following the links is more likely to think "why did Wikipedia link me here?" than "My, what wonderful information about the Sacred fire of Vesta". Please stop adding them. - Nunh-huh 19:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Those references have relevance to this article. What part of all the facts relating to a particular subject do you not understand? JDR 06:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By that reasoning, every web page that contains a mention of Vesta should be here. That reasoning is wrong. Encyclopedias by necessity must sort information by relevancy, and order it so that it is understandable. Nothing in the links you keep adding relate to this subject in any way other than mentioning it. They are tangential and their inclusion here is inappropriate. Anyone following the links is more likely to think "why did Wikipedia link me here?" than "My, what wonderful information about the Sacred fire of Vesta". Please stop adding them. -- Nunh-huh 06:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By that reasoning, every web page that contains a mention of Vesta should be here? Umm no ... and that is not what indeed is occuring. Only the specific references to vesta have been cited ... AND these links are being used for the construction of the articvle ... It's good form to CITE YOUR SOURCES!

Relevancy? It is relevant ... and is now being used in the article. They are not tangential and their inclusion here is appropriate. JDR 06:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we let some third parties decide on their relevance. The fact that a Google search for "Tesla Vesta" returns only Wikipedia, its mirrors, and Tesla's astrological natal chart is good evidence that Tesla and Vesta are only tangentially related. - Nunh-huh 06:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What part of CITE YOUR SOURCES do you not understand? "If you consult an external source while writing an article, citing it is basic intellectual honesty". The external links and references were consulted!

As to "Google testing" ... Google is good, but not great [especially on esoteric topics such as this]. JDR

If you are citing a source, you should key it to a statement. The web pages you keep adding do not seem to actually be the source of any statements in the article. You should not cite as "sources" that which is not a source. - Nunh-huh 21:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

citing a source, I should key it to a statement? Ok ... done.

Do not seem to actually be the source of any statements in the article? YMMV on that.

Not cite as "sources" that which is not a source? But that is not the case.

JDR 03:40, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) [have you read any of the links?]

Yes, I have. Though most of them are well-nigh unreadable. They are peripheral to an article on the Sacred fire of Vesta. The article is not made better by their inclusion. = Nunh-huh 03:49, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your POV was pretty glaring in the last edit. JDR 03:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just helping to balance yours. - Nunh-huh 03:56, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

LOL ... ok ... JDR

Agreed, someone should either hunt down whether the first part is genuinely accurate, or remove it altogether. I don't think that the second part of Analysis should be removed, but maybe the section ought to be renamed. -- towo 15:08, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

The Tesla stuff really needs to be removed, but since it has a persistent Teslaphile advocate, can only be minimized. - Nunh-huh 20:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Teslaphile"? LOL. That's funny ... name calling gets you nowhere =-]. JDR

---

rewrite?

This article is a load of half-baked nonsense. Nothing less than a complete rewrite has any hope of saving it from its current status as a playground for crackpot pseudo-Velikovskian nonsense. I will try as soon as I have the time. —No-One Jones 16:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just a general sense that is is a load of half-baked nonsense? or is that you genral feelings? I'll bve watching for hte rewrite The information is not "crackpot pseudo-Velikovskian nonsense" ... no .. it really isn't ... can you state exactly how it is? otherwise I'll keep adding the referenced information. I will be watching ... JDR

Reddi, before you mangle this article again, I have two requests: first, read some halfway-mainstream works on the topic (the stuff I added to the bibliography is decent, though some of it is old); second, please pay attention to the structure of the writing—your last edit turned the article into a well-tossed salad of sentences, most of which bore no relation to their immediate neighbors. —No-One Jones 19:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mirv, before I "mangle" this article again? I am providing information, before you mangle this article again PLEASE read up on the various information ... as to you concerns ... first, I have read some mainstream works on the topic ... primarily in my "History of Rome" class. The bibliography is great (IMO) ... but other information is needed (the bibliography is not the only works that can be cited ... the other references are needed). Second, as to my particular structure of the writing, I am sorry ... not great @ prose (not an english major ...). If you could point out the parts of my last edit that turned the article into a "well-tossed salad of sentences", please do .... they do, though, have relation to the article's topic. JDR 20:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You should discuss any change you want to make here. You now have two people telling you they disagree with your judgement about the appropriateness of this material. Cutting and pasting things like "Tesla's was well read" is not helpful. - Nunh-huh 21:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I should discuss any change I want to make here? That is not necessary (nor required). People disagree with on alot of various judgements on wikipedia and some have a precieved "violation of behavioral expectations" (a POV) is NOT a criterion for exclusiopn of the information. "Tesla's was well read" is a fact ... and you exclusion of information is not helpful. JDR

Yes, you should discuss. That is the usual procedure. "Tesla's was well read" is ungrammatical. Please read those four words carefully. The point they attempt' to make is also irrelevant. - Nunh-huh 21:56, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is what I mean by "a well-tossed salad of sentences" (from the revision of 18:04, 12 July 2004:

1. By analogy, they also tended the life and soul of the city and of the body politic through the sacred fire of Vesta, which was renewed every year on the Kalends of March. The maintenance of the Vestal sacred fire, the communal hearth of Rome, in the Temple of Vesta (Aedes Vesta), was the primary responsibility of the Vestal Virgins. The zilch eterau may have been in charge of the Vestal Virgins and, thus, the flame.

   The first sentence is fine; however, the second sentence is out of place and repeats something already covered above, while the third sentence is argle-bargle: without the briefest explanation of what these "zilch eterau" are (which Crosthwaite, either because he thinks explanation unnecessary or he just doesn't know, doesn't provide), the sentence is meaningless to the average reader. We might as well say "The flibbelty-bok dring-drangs may have been in charge . . ."—that would make an equal amount of sense. This was followed by:

2. "A Roman priest might be a flamen, or one who drew this flame. The Sacred fire of Vesta was a symbol of the hearth and the home."

   As I said in my edit summary, the etymology of flamen is obscure, and anyway the flamines didn't tend the sacred fire, the Vestal Virgins did. The second sentence is redundant and out of place; it has no connection whatsoever with the previous sentence. Moving on:

3. The sacred fire burned in Vesta's circular temple in the Roman Forum (below the Aventine Hill (called Tempio della Fortuna Virile)).

   This is A: bad writing (two levels of parentheses (are ugly and hard to read)) and B: wrong. The Tempio della Fortuna Virile is next to the Temple of Vesta, but it is not the same thing. Please don't restore this nonsense.

4. The maintaining of the Sacred fire of Vesta, for the Greeks and Romans, was a way of persuading a deity to protect the city. Vesta, in Rome, was custodian of the sacred fire said to have been brought by Aeneas from Troy. It was thought that extinction of the flame would portend national disaster.

   Oookay. First of all, the Greeks didn't maintain the sacred fire of Vesta; second, Vesta was the goddess of fire and the hearth, not the guardian of the fire brought by Aeneas from Troy—and the story that Aeneas brought a sacred fire from Troy was a later invention (late Republican/early Imperial period IIRC—Ovid, I recall, calls Vesta "Ilian"). The third sentence is already in the intro, with a citation. AND the last two sentences were duplicated, for some unfathomable reason.

5. The keeping of ordinary fires was a widely held sacred rite world wide. The Persians had such a building in each town and village. The Egyptians had such fires in every temple. Mexicans, Natches, Peruvians and Mayas kept their national fires burning upon great pyramids. According to Houdini, the Eternal Lamps that were kept burning in synagogues and in Byzantine and Catholic churches may be a survival of these customs.

   Massively off-topic; the article is about the Sacred fire of Vesta, so dragging in information about sacred fires around the world is simply bad form. If we had an article on Sacred fire, that would be the place for this stuff. —No-One Jones 21:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lets see your "well-tossed salad of sentences"?

1. [analogy] The first sentence is related to the second sentences through the fire's maintaince. Repeatition isn't necesarily bad ... but that could be rv'ed (ie., communal hearth part) ... could you translate "argle-bargle" to english? If an explaination opf the "zilch eterau" is necessary, that that sould be put in ... the information should not be removed. Criticing Crosthwaite, by presonal attack on his character (eg., your "he just doesn't know"), does not justify the removal of the information. He may thinks explanation unnecessary ... or it is explained elsewhere (I'll see if I can come back with futher info on this) The average reader may be interested in this (let the readers make up thier mind). You are in error to say the meaningless statement of "The flibbelty-bok dring-drangs may have been in charge . . ." ... you are making a fallacious arguemnt (you can pick one ... but mainly your point is a relativist fallacy or straw man). It's not any "flibbelty-bok dring-drangs" but the "zilch eterau". (I'll come back to this ... hopefully with references)
2. [flamen] the etymology of flamen is obscure? Is information that is obscure grounds for removal? No ... that would be idiocy [much like the obscure fact that Gillette did not invent the saftey razor]. Flamen oversaw the Vestal Virgins who did the work (I would hope you could "connect the dots"). The sentence "a symbol of the hearth and the home" may be redundant (sentences can be repeated ... if needed). If it is "out of place", then move the information to a location where is has a connection with the previous sentence (don't remove the information).
3. [below the Aventine Hill (called Tempio della Fortuna Virile)] Two levels of parentheses may be ugly (that's a subjective evaluation) and may hard to read (though necessary to explain the concepts). The Tempio della Fortuna Virile is next to the Temple of Vesta, but it is not the same thing. THE SENTECE DOES NOT STATE THAT THEY ARE THE SAME. The rectangular temple is not the Vesta Temple. I will restore this so-called "nonsense" ... as it tells where the temple is at ...
4. [maintaining]] Greeks didn't maintain the Sacred fire of Vesta .. they would be maintaining a sacred fire of Hestia. Vesta was the goddess of fire and the hearth and it's guardian (read as: she tended the fire much like Hestia did on Mt. Olympus). A sentence already in the intro can be repeated (especially for clarification/reminder). Any exact duplicates, though, could be removed. I'll work on including the story that Aeneas brought the sacred fire from Troy (and point out that may have been a later invention (upon get some references)). The information about Ovid calling Vesta "Ilian" should be included in that article (and vesta's article).
5. [Analysis notes] Massively off-topic? They are related ... through a Sacred fire concept (which you cite ... also called an external flame). The article is about the Sacred fire of Vesta, including other information {your "dragging in") is informative (is wikipedia not meant to inform?) ... not really "bad form" (unless you think including inforamtion is done in "bad form"). If an article on Sacred fire was created, mabey the information could go there (... but as it does not exist, it should be here till that time).
6. I'll await you explaination on Tesla, Houdina, and Crosthwaite ... and also consider moving the info to keep it available to the readers. JDR 23:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adding an image

I'm just adding an image of the hearth at the Temple of Vesta in Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankcjones (talk • contribs) 02:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I also added lat/long and other descriptive info with links to related articles on Wikipedia. Frankcjones (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)