Talk:Oxford Classical Dictionary

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

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.

Untitled

Somebody must write a biographical article about Max Cary (181-1958), editor of the 1st ed. He was born with the curiouly german name Maximilian Otto Bismarck Caspari, but I don't know anything about his familiy background. Early on his life he published a selection of Grote's History of Greece, with some additional matter. He was Reader of Ancient History in University College, London (or was King's College, London, I don't know) from 1908 to 1946. He anglicized his name to Max Cary during the First World War. He wrote many chapters to the Cambridge Ancient History (1st ed., 1923-39) and edited the Methuen's History of Greek and Roman World (circa 1932-1938, the first volume published was his own A History of the Greek Word from 323 to 146 B.C, other volumes contributed by historians like H. H. Scullard, E. T. Salmon, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.213.212 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled]

I erased the claim that there was a Third edition published in 2002. The Third Edition is actually from 1996, and according to this site, at least as of 2003, the '96 edition was still the current edition: [1]. Decius 04:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The confusion may have arisen because there is a "revised 3rd edition" from 2003 (I just bought one a month ago). Stan 13:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Authoritative

Made an edit to a sentence. Authoritative does not equal: unimpeccable, or unquestionable, etc. See [2] ("highly reliable" is as good as the definition gets). Authoritative means it can be used as a credible & credited reference presenting a view that is maintained at least by some scholars; it does not mean that OCD always presents the sole scholarly view or even the consensus (=majority opinion) scholarly view. See for example the 1996 edition's inclusion of Olivier Masson's view on the Ancient Macedonian language, where Masson states that it should tentatively be viewed as a Greek dialect. This is not the consensus view by any means. There are other examples. Decius 07:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also its treatment of Agatharchides, which presents one point of view. Decius 07:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decius, I agree entirely that "authoritative" does not mean perfect. No reference source is. So I don't see the need for the qualification of authoritative: "though a number of topics treated are often in dispute and/or still being investigated, and other authoritative sources often have different views". I cannot think of any non-trivial reference where it could be said that nothing in it is in dispute, not even a table of definite integrals (they always have *some* errors). On the other hand, if there are specific disputed topics, where it doesn't seem that the OCD fairly presents disputes, or doesn't present the consensus position, then those should perhaps be signaled, especially if there is a quotable source for the dispute, e.g. a review in a reputable international journal. --Macrakis 14:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was a response to what the former editor wrote, characterizing the OCD as "impeccable". That doesn't sound like NPOV to me. Better then that, it doesn't sound accurate. Decius 15:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute about the ancient Macedonian language is an example: it was not good policy of OCD to give Masson free reign the way it did, considering that more linguists disagree than agree with Masson's view. The Agatharchides situation is another example. I'll find more. Also, I would suppose that the older editions are less reliable (in the sense that new scholarship has developed different views on various topics; I'm not referring to ancient Macedonian language debate here). Decius 15:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is that many readers misconstrue what authoritative means in English. I've noticed that many people don't have enough reason to question an obviously dubious website (see Talk:Illyria, list of Illyrian tribes fiasco); I would suppose that even more people would not think to question OCD. Decius 15:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'impeccably authoritative' is puffery, not description. I've removed the word 'authoritative' (and the related qualifications) completely. "Standard one-volume encyclopedia" should be enough. --Macrakis 15:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thanks Macrakis. Decius 15:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What value is it to have external links to the "catalog" pages on the publisher's & Amazon websites? Beyond making it easier for a given person to buy a copy, that is? -- llywrch (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]