Talk:Dido

Old stuff

Greek mythology? or the Aeneid? When no sources are mentioned, we could be discussing the libretto of a Baroque opera as much as anything. Wetman 22:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I beg your pardon: I'm new here and I'm tring to understand this system. Ok. Can we talk about this item? Can we keep together our different versions here? Then we can talk more about this topic, and if you wish so, I can tell you more about my sources and my studies. And you too of course (about yours). Thank you so much.

Newbies without logins who come in and delete entire articles and replace them with their own work with no comments as to why are looked up with suspicion. If you have problems with the current article, please let us know what they are, and modify the article as you think it should be. But don't just replace the entire thing without any explanation. RickK 23:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's Ok! Now I've understood the procedure. I beg your pardon again. I'm not a vandal, of course. If you prefer the top of the page, for me it's not so important. I'd like to talk on what we are not agree about. This is my e-mail: conte@queendido.org. You're welcome, thank you.

---

I fixed inaccuracies such as statement that Pygmalion seized Acherbas[sp]'s riches and that Elissa threw herself into the fire. There are really only two versions of the tale that have come down to us, and in making clear how they differ it seemed that discussing the earlier version first worked better.

I removed the "historiographical outlines". It was not historiography, rather a POV historical reconstruction of the life of a person who may not have ever lived. If there is any consensus on this matter it is probably that there isn't enough information surviving to allow any historical reconstruction. I added a bit about that debate.

Details such as birth and death date, visit to Malta, that Elissa married again (nothing of that in any source that I know), that she personally favored a republican government (evidence?) or that she was identified with Tanit (evidence?) are neither historiography or historical reconstruction based on any evidence. Maleuvre's "double writing" theory is also generally not accepted. What little response I have seen has not been favorable to it.

I've left the street name anecdote, but would not mind someone in Rome confirming that indeed every name in Virgil's Aeneid is a street name somewhere in Rome except Dido (and if not so, what other names are omitted). As it stands the story has a feel of urban legend.

The link to www.virgilmurder.org was removed as having almost no relation to Dido. It is still in the Wikipedia Virgil entry page where it is relevant. jallan 00:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Dear jallan, are you a fascist? Wikipedia is not yours, it's not a jallanpedia. I live in Rome, I know my city: your note is stupid: Dido is the SECOND character for importance in the Aeneid and SHE HAS NOT A STREET IN ROME. EVEN ILLIONEUS HAS ONE (DO YOU KNOW HIM?): do you wish consult streets database of Rome? Please be democratic and discuss with me and other users your ideas. Although you are an arrogant, I will not remove your part as you did with mine and other users ones. It's normal that with Virgil topics, as Dido, there are several points of view. Your sources (as Timeus) are gossip, classic gossip. You forget Ovid, Silius Italicus, Trebellius Pollio, and above all Virgil (in double writing). And please bring your Aeneid part in his proper page: Elissa/Dido was not created from Augustus. She was the leader of a people in war against Rome. Have you read at least one of the books I put in the bibliography? Do you know Dido is Tanit according to some important scholars? Do you know the Sign of Tanit? If you are available to discuss civilly, I can answer to all your questions and I will be glad to show you sources you do not know. Then, if you just hate this character for your political or personal reasons, you can tell it.

---

Salvatore Conte's user pages seem to have vanished. Perhaps he has left Wikipedia.

In any case, I have modified that Mussolini Dido passage in light of Savlatore Conte's new claim that Dido was the only important character omitted from the street names, not that she was the only character omitted as Salvatore Conte originally wrote.

As to the rest, I have again removed what seems to me an idiosyncratic personal reconstrucion of the supposed original history of Dido. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Wikipedia is not the place for such things, epsecially when presented without attribution or any indication as to reason for the conclusions.

For example, a discussion of who exactly thinks the story of the bullhide is history rather than a folklore motif and why they do so would be reasonable in the article.

I don't understand the statement that Elissa/Dido was not created from Augustus. Whoever said she was?

I do not know that Tanit is really Dido according to some important scholars.

Nor can I or other readers of the article necessarily be expected to know that if those important scholars are not named. Their reasoning should be given also, which is probably more important than names. This is especially so for a theory that is practically unknown.

I do know that Tanit or Tennit has been identified with `Ashtart by several Italian scholars, including Garbini and Moscati and one still finds this equation. W. F. Albright and others believed Tanit was the goddess `Anat. Frank Moore Cross argued for identification with the Ugaritic goddess Athirat. He also believed the name Tanit may be found in the Proto-Sinaitic Text 347. There's a discussion of Tanit at http://www.labherm.filol.csic.es/Sapanu1998/Es/Actas/GarcBell/MPazGB.htm which makes no mention of Dido or Elissa.

An identification with Dido is certainly mainstream and not even discussed in mainstream. There's nothing wrong with presenting a minority theory here. But such theories should be honestly identified as such and compared and contrasted with other theories, in this case probably in an article on Tanit/Tennit with a cross link from Dido.

I know the so-called "sign of Tanit". It may have nothing to do with Tanit. See http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/Tanit-symbol.htm . But that seems to me irrelevant to Dido being Tanit or not being Tanit.

In any case, idiosyncratic non-NPOV writing, does not belong in Wikipedia, except as indicated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not when presented as part of a discussion of varying theories.

Wikipedia is not the place for propagating idiosyncratic theories. jallan 01:26, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Now I understand who you are. First thing, you do not have a name and a surname, while Dr. Salvatore Conte has one. He has invited you to confront and to present ideas and authors, but you - once again - have made vandalism of his article. You didn’t give him time and chance to answer and to explain his reasons, I suppose. Your humor about Mussolini streets is stupid: of course Dr. Conte referred to an important character as Dido. I remember you Wikipedia is a new innovating project, not a “copy & paste” project from other sources. This space is open to new ideas, and to new scholars. You hate Dido because perhaps she belongs to a disappeared civilization, and because perhaps she was a woman, she was Semite, she was African. I can’t understand your dull point of view focused on classic gossip by Timeus. You have to bring ideas, not hate, not politics here, please. Of course there are many points of view on this subject. You quote important authors, and that’s fair and interesting. But Dr. Conte is an author himself, and he can quote a number of authors which follow a different point of view from yours. But I think he has to not begin until you become a civil person. When you are ready to discuss civilly (“discuss page” is the name of it, not “Jallan decrees”), I think he can expose other sources. Until that moment, I’ll defend plurality of Wikipedia watching all days, restoring it each time from your vandalism. Have you understood?

Iopa

I have linked this to the NPOV page where other may see and judge.

If Dr. Conte can cite sources for his attempt at reconstruction then he should do so in the new perpesctive article. As I mentioned, I would not at all mind seeing what reasons there might be for identifying Tanit with Dido.

But whose new perspective is this?

If it is a shared perspective of a group, then surely the originator should be named and given credit and some indication should be provided as to the rationale behind the theory and whether or not it is widely accepted.

If this "New Perspective" is solely Dr. Conte's own idiosyncratic and imaginative creation, then Wikipedia is not the place for it unless it becomes widely accepted.

A mention of Jean-Yves Maleuvre's double reading theory is hardly sufficient to establish the validity of this "New Perspective", as Meleuvre's contentions expressed at http://www.virgilmurder.org/ are generally considered fringe.

Similarly I would not want to see any single one of the various recent attempts to reconstruct the historical King Arthur to appear alone in an article on King Arthur without indication of the various competing theories. jallan 00:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I accept your challenge with much pleasure. I don't understand your hate toward a serious scholar as Prof. Maleuvre: he's completely indifferent to Dido's biography. If you have problems with him, resolve with him. I'm another person. Of course we need time: I have a job, I hope you have one too. We can choose a single subject to begin. But please be honest or this challenge has no sense. You can't say, if you are a serious person, I'm alone to believe Dido is Tanit. Try to be serious. Science is not dogma: no one has ultimate truth. There are some different theories for each problem. Only you want a single theory. I don't mean it's sure Dido was also Tanit: this is one of the possibilities, as yours is one of the possibilities. But the point of view I've reported here has at least seven international scholars which substain it, and I've reported them in the bibliography. My own theory was quoted by serious scholars. I accept to talk by my original name, while you are masked by a nickname. Going on, just to say one very soon, Dido's landing to Malta was reported by Ovid in "Fasti". Ovid is an excellent author, much more reliable than Timeus, who is the only source of you. Timeus hated Punic civilization (MANY HISTORICIANS SAY THIS!). His story about Dido is stupid, and important scholars as S. Moscati (which you quoted) doesn't take it too much seriously. G. Herm also and even more. Then you forget Silius Italicus. As you can find on my article (but your hate don't permit you to read), on Punica 1.71/76, he talks about a loyal follower of Dido who saves her and follows her IN ALL THE CASES OF LIFE (so in the suicide too? The "problem" is this man is the ancient FATHER of Hannibal, so he didn't commit suicide. This means Dido didn't commit suicide too, because Hannibal says he descends directly from Dido: a suicide can be pregnant?). IN ALL THE CASES OF LIFE is with evidence a marital formula. Again: just you in Zenobia article remember that Queen Zenobia declared herself descent directly by Dido (she wanted her royal rights, not a joke); so another time, a suicide can be pregnant? You don't realize Greek and Roman society was misogine? You tell by your own we don't know if Dido really existed and then you want to be sure she committed suicide? WHY? I don't say I'm sure she didn't commit suicide. I say there are some good evidences that show they didn't commit suicide. But I recognize other theories, and I've called "new perspectives" the theory of "no suicide" because it's newer than others, not because it's better or worst. About Virgil: we don't need to arrive until Maleuvre's age to understand Virgil. Ovid understood very well him, very soon. A. Barchiesi, a great scholar in Italy, says Ovid's Dido doesn't plan to commit suicide, for instance. These are a very very little parts of arguments I can show you. Just a beginning. If you are talking by yourself and not for political hidden reasons, we can talk more friendly. Your choice.

---

Your statements under "New Perspectives" for each incident in the imagined life of Elissa lists one possibility only. It is not attributed to any source. Apparently it is your idiosncratic theory which ignores any scholar who speaks differently.

Please do read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#What_is_the_neutral_point_of_view%3F

Especially

But consider, if we each take responsibility for the entire article when we hit "save", then when we make a change that represents our own views but not contrary views, or represents contrary views unfairly or incompletely, surely we are adding bias to Wikipedia. Does it make sense not to take responsibility for the entire article? Does it make sense to take sentences and say, "These are mine"? Perhaps, but in a project that is so strongly and explicitly committed to neutrality, that attitude seems out of place.

The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all.

"Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding deliberately flawed arguments to Wikipedia, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise puzzling) behavior as adding the best (published) arguments of the opposition, preferably citing some prominent person who has actually made the argument in the form in which you present it, stating them as sympathetically as possible. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the time.

Your unattributed "New Perspectives" break these rules.

This is an encyclopedia article and should not present any one person's opinion on matters so unprovable as, for example, Dido's motivation for leaving Tyre or whether or not the story of the thong is true or false (unless there is something close to unanimity among scholars). Such articles about legendary characters should contains some or all of identification of the sources for the character, summaries of the story or stories told, discussion of late reworkings of the tales and a survey of scholarly discussion. They should not contain a particular idiosyncratic view of a single individual.

Dido's landing on Malta is not supported by the Fasti which speaks of Anna, not Dido, landing in Malta and of the king's former hospitality, which might refer to Dido's original voyage from Tyre or might refer to some later visit, if one trusts Ovid at all. Why should one? Do you really consider this strange story about Anna being driven out of Carthage and finally happening upon Aneas and ending up as the goddess Anna Perenna as historical?

To mention in a supposed attempt to reconsruct Dido's history that Elissa stopped at Malta suggests that there is some reason by which a stoppage at Malta has more historical evidence than, say, the story of Dido having the bags of sand dropped into the sea. At least that is what a reader would take from a summary which includes one and omits the other.

Such arbitariy decisions that someting is historical should be justified or should not be made at all or should be ascribed to a particular tradition of scholarship, e.g: "W. F. Albright and others equate Tanit with `Anat" or even just "Some scholars equte Tanit with `Anat". It would be incorrect to say in a particular section: "Tanit is `Anat." Too many disagree. Similarly it is incorrect to say here "Tanit is Dido."

As to Timaeus' story, we really don't have it. All we have is Justin's account. If you deny it, then most of your "New Perspectives" also disappears. You are quite right that most scholars don't take this story seriously. But they don't take any of the Elissa story very seriously. They certainly don't take Ovid's account of Anna seriously. Yet your historicization takes almost everything seriously up to the story of the suicide, even though Ovid also, both in the Fasti and in the Metamorphoses, mentions Dido's suicide in connection with the Aeneas story. Is Ovid really more historical than Timeaeus or Justin? Do you really consider the Aeneas love affair historical and Justin's account fantasy.

(I would suggest they are both likely to be fantasy, but that the Aeneas connection is the more recent fantasy ... as is general opinion. Taking Ovid as history, especially in respect to the account in the Fasti is a very unusual.)

As to Silius Italicus, I do mention him. What you leave out in your summary here is that the young man is styled Belides, that is "son of Belus", and is normally taken to be a younger brother of Dido son of Belus who followed Dido in all the cases of her life. How many have ever had a problem with that? There is such a thing as trying to extract from words far more than is meant. On your theory, would you mean Silius Italicus to say that this young man, whom you would make a second husband to Dido rather than her brother (son of some other Belus?), lived exactly as long as Dido lived and not one instant longer? If not, then what matter how Dido met her death as Silius Italicus did not intend it to be understood that Belides died exactly when she did, only that he followed her and generally shared her situation while she was alive.

Taken entirely literally, Italicus' word would mean that this young man was with Dido in everything she did, went to bed with her every night, got up with her in the morning, was with her when she urinated and defecated, was never once apart from her for one moment.

Is there not something contrary in pressing Silius Italicus' statement about the boy following Dido in all the cases of her life so absurdly far and so extremely literally and then supressing Italicus' use of the term Belides?

Is there not something contrary in ignoring entirely that Silius Italicus does relate Dido's suicide on the pyre in Book 2, 412f?

In Book 15 Hannibal is said to be descended from Belus and related to Dido, not descended from Dido.

Justin, Virgil, Ovid, and Silius Italicus all relate Dido/Elissa's suicide.

That doesn't mean it happened, of course. But then nothing they say may have happened. Dido may be as much an invention as Romulus probably was or all the accounts of her life may have no more relation to some real Elissa than do the medieval accounts of Dietrich von Berne to the historical Theodoric the Goth.

As to Zenobia:

There is a discussion of Zenobia's ancestry at http://www.geocities.com/christopherjbennett/ptolemies/selene_ii.htm . The authors suggest a relation to the Barcids along with the Silius Italicus' claim for Barcid descent from Dido's brother, not directly from Dido. A confusion between claiming to be an heir of someone and claiming to be a direct descendant is common enough in sources. (One finds again and again in secondary sources that the Tudors claimed descent from King Arthur. They did not. They claimed only in a vague sort of way to be heirs of Arthur.) And the claim only appears in this late Augustan history, which is not considered trustworthy by most and almost certainly not actually written by Trebellius Pollio.

Of course, if you are inventing a second husband for Dido, why not instead invent a son by her first husband? Such a son could also have been found in some alternate tradition.

But the main point: it is improper according to Wikipedia standards for a single theory to be presented as this New Viewpoint is presented, especially standing alone, without attribution to anyone and without rationale. If it is entirely your own conception, than it breaks Wikipedia rules even more so, especially in any area where it is certainly very much a minority theory. Is there one other scholar who would agree with it being a probable history of an historical Elissa on every point.

How many scholars besides yourself reject the suicide but accept the Byrsa story? Why should your particular reconstruction be the one that readers see when it is not a standard one? Why should any reconstruction be included when there isn't a standard one?

And under Wikipedia rules anyone has the right to modify or change your statements (or my statements) at any time. This is another reason why Wikipedia is the wrong place for an idiosyncratic theory so presented. Once you place it in Wikipedia, that writing is no longer yours. Anyone can rewrite as they see fit subject to comment by others and to any final arbitration of any otherwise irreconcilable dispute. Only a summary of a theory attributed to a particular scholar or particular school could with reasonable certainy be expected to be left alone ... at least as far as content goes. Even there, words may be changed as long as the results honestly represent the ideas of that particular scholar or that particular school of thought.

If any theory should have special status in this article, it would be the most common view, which is that we don't have enough information to write about an historical Elissa and shouldn't try. jallan 07:54, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

---

That's interesting and we'll do a book at the end. Now just a flash: I come back soon. I think it's difficult to talk with you, Jallan. You opposite even the evidence. You seem to have a unique pourpose: to impose with violence your point of view and to show Dido belonged to Greek or Roman culture. May be you'll win, but your victory will be poor. You don't fight for progress and democracy. I don't wish to offend you, but it's difficult to talk with you if you do not know well Latin language. Which minor brother of Dido? First one: Silius Italicus follows strictly Virgil (his Master), and no source (certainly not Virgil) talks about a brother of Dido, beyond Pygmalion. Second one: "Belides iuvenis" is the original expression of Silius Italicus (he wrote on Latin, not on English, not on Italian); NO MINOR BROTHER. About "Belides" you are in fault: Hannibal is said "Elisseo": so what? You have to read words in their full passage and meaning. Third one: in the light of whole passage of Silius, it's absolutely clear (check it) this person you call "minor brother" was glorious because helped Dido (for a brother would be normal, don't think so?), and that this person was from Barca family (Hannibal family): so - again - he can't be from Barca family and Dido's father together !! But, as Silius says, the nephews of this person (the "minor brother" or just a YOUNG COURTEZAN OF ROYAL HOUSE), so Amilcare and hannibal, descent from Barca and from BELUS the First, so it's clear the "minor brother" got some sons from Dido and joined together the two families (Barca and Belus I ones). But Silius tells more about death of Dido: it was into Juno's Temple not in the Royal House; that's another proof of her NOT SUICIDE: it's impossible to build a pire in a Temple, and it's clear she went there to dye in front of her Goddess. Tomorrow I'll give the name of six scholars which substain Dido was Tanit. Talking bad about Ovid is a joke from your side. It was a Master, and in the bibliography of this article you can find essays about the connection between Ovid and Virgil. I'll quote for you how many scholars think Timeus has no credibility. About passage to Republic, Virgil says this in First Boook of Aeneid: I'm surprised you don't recognize it. Everybody knows Carthage had not monarchy; Dido was Queen of Tyrus, indeed. I don't say I have ultimate proofs, but I don't understand because you think you have then, or because you think these are ideas by Dr. Conte only: how can you think this? That's simply incredible. G. Herm, a prestigiuos scholar doesn't accept Dido's part of Timeus story in which she commits suicide. And Prof. Moscati too. Timeus and Justin suicide story are very much different: so they were inventing. You are right when you say suicide in Virgil is not an historical truth because it is for Aeneas doing: Virgil says the Fate of Dido is to live long; just Aeneas can change it. But we know Aeneas and Didoe were very far in times, so Virgil thinks "historical Dido" lived long. Now I have no more time, sorry. We can discuss a point after another point? Please tell first one. Bye.

---

I don't think I am opposing any evidence. I think you are distorting and cherry-picking evidence to fit a pre-decided theory.

I was quite aware of the Latin form Belides iuvenis and thought I had explained clearly that a normal interpretation of this as 'young son of Belus' would naturally refer to a younger brother of Dido who is daughter of Belus. Has this not been the normal interpration? It is the intpretation found at http://www.geocities.com/christopherjbennett/ptolemies/selene_ii.htm . Search for Zenobia.

That no other source speaks of this brother is true. It is also true that no other source mentions a second husband for Dido either. There is at least room for this brother in the standard stories. There is no room for a second husband.

Silius Italicus is either inventing or relating a tradition not found before him in surviving literature. That Italicus means here the mythological king called Belus I seems to me very improbable. To be sure, it is reasonable to imagine that Dido's line might ascend to the mythical king Agenor of Tyre or Sidon who is normally son of Poseidon by Lybia and younger brother to Belus who is King of Egypt. But Belus has nothing to do with Phoenicia. He is father of Aegyptus and Danaus, from whence the Danaans. Only Nonnus in his Dionysiaca, so far as I know, makes Belus the father of Agenor.

If Silius Italicus did indeed mean Belus of Egypt rather than Belus father of Dido and was indeed referring to the very unusual genealogy which also appears in Nonnus, he is being uncharacteristically obscure.

Italicus make Hannibal say: mihi Belus auorum principium, mihi cognatum Sidonia Dido nomen. This seems quite clear. Belus father of Pygmalion and Dido is the beginning of his line and Dido is a relation but not a direct ancestor.

If indeed, as you claim, Silius Italicus follows Virgil exactly, then for him Dido does die on the pyre as Virgil has her do. Silius Italicus mentions the death on the pyre in Book 2, 412f and in Book 8.50f. The text is clear enough in both cases. Where would Silius Italicus fit a second husband into his chronology and back story?

I cannot locate the reference which you claim places the death in the temple of Juno. A pyre in a temple would indeed by absurd.

And I find the elucation at http://phronesis.org/article.php3?id_article=20 very unconvincing. Who before Dr. Conte ever interpreted this passage to mean that Aeneas and his followers were only imagining the suicide? How many have been convinced by Dr. Conte's unique theory? Silius Italicus refers directly to the pyre. Did Silius Italicus also intend this to be imaginary? Why bother relating it at all then?

As to Dido being Tanit, at http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html Dr. Conte presents this idea as an unusual one and invents a devotion to Astarte, not found in any texts. Certainly in both the Aeneid and Silius Italicus it is understood that Tanit is Juno.

There is no point in citing scholars that think Timaeus' account is not credible. Of course most think it legend. They also cast aside the fuller accounts of Justin, Virgil, Ovid and Silus Italicus. For the last three one might better call it literary invention, but of course literary invention is sometimes what later generations accept as tradition.

The oddity is not in what you discard but what you keep. I get the impression that for some reason you don't want Elissa's story to end with suicide, like a young friend of mine who recently longingly opined that the story of Romeo and Juliette would have been better if it had ended happily. So you desperiately try to rewrite the ending. This is quite legimate as art. There is no reason why there should not be links to reviews of Savatore Conte's play. Salvatore Conte has just as much right to change his sources as Virgil did or earlier authors. But it seems to me that you are denying those earlier authors their own voice to tell a story different than the one you prefer.

Virgil may or may not have thought the historical Elissa was long lived. He may have thought that the historical Aeneas, if there was one, never came anywhere near Italy. Or he may been quite ready to believe that Carthage was founded long before Timaeus stated, following other chronologers who did date its foundation much earlier. Why should he not think so? Chronographers disagreed with one another. Virgil may also have sincerely believed that an historical Aeneas came from an historical Ilium and founded Lavinium and even believed a tradition that he visited Carthage.

What evidence either way?

I don't see the idea that Dido's life was cut short indicates anything more than the well-known story of Meleager and the burning brand indicates that those who told it thought there was an historical Meleager who had a long life.

Again, articles in the Wikipedia, when they cover scholarship in any area where there are difference in opinion, are intended to be summaries of that scholarship, pointing out differences of opinions rather than a single person's presentation of his or her own particular beliefs.

One of the main principles of Wikipedia is that articles should be NPOV, written in a neutral point of view. Someone such as yourself should enrich the article by describing various theories and their rationale, not by presenting only your own idiosyncratic theory. jallan 21:45, 30 May 2004 (UTC) ___

Dear Jallan, now you're talking more civilly, and we are doing some progress. But you like again to offend a serious scholar as Dr. Conte. He's not only a writer, but a researcher too. About Virgil's Dido, he's making an essay: "Dido sine veste", published on next weeks. Comparison with Romeo and Juliet offends yourself. You are not stupid, and you are cultured: please stay serious on the topic. And please, consider English is not my natural language. You say you are neutral, Conte not. Try to be objective, please. No modern author has never written a complete biography of Dido. So we are doing something new. And we have to find a fair method: I'm agree here. I think Conte doesn't wish impose no personal idea: "we are a community", it's said on Wikipedia; everyone has right/duty to bring a contribution. We know just a little about Dido: every trace is useful. I'm sorry you are single-minded like a robot. Our effort is collect every trace and build a reasonable profile. I'm glad of your help: I repeat, you are competent. You would be better if you don't offend other ideas and studies. I think profile proposed by Dr. Conte is scientifically founded, reasonable, honest; it coordinates single contributions of important scholars as G. Herm, S. Moscati, G. De Sanctis, and several others; of course it's fair and possible to introduce this profile with such as "It's possible to argue...", explaining better reasons of this profile. That's fair. Also your part has to be clear about sources. We live in a democratic world, where (luckily) there are several points of view, several scientific schools, public research Istitutions (Universities), private research istitutions, independent scholars coming from both. I repeat: propose a fair method. We can do in this way: in the beginning of the article we can put traditional account by Timeus (as it was before your entry). Then we can list sperimental profiles which argue alternative approaches. Tomorrow I'll come back with new quotes, but in the meanwhile I go one moment on "Belides iuvenis" (Punica, 1.75). As I told before you are not a stupid. So you know what is a concordance. The word "Belides, ae", is used by Silius just twice only; the second time is in 3.650: "maxime Belide" (Hannibal, so not a natural son, but a symbolic one!). As you see, "Belides, ae" is the same as "Aeneades, ae", that means (symbolic) descendant from a people leader. Besides, Belus is not simply the father of Dido according to Silius: he's the founder of Phoenician people; Dido's father is another following Belus. But if you are not satisfied, Hannibal is said "Elissaeo" (2.239), in the same way of "Belides" so for you this means Hannibal was natural nephew of Elissa (for me he is, but not for this word simply). More: Elissa is said "genetrix" in 1.81, with a clear and (pagan) holy expression that means she was mother, rectius "The Mother". More: Silius doesn's say in 1.75, "escaping from evil brother", he says "escaping from evil Tyrant" !! (so this "misterious man" and Pygmalion were not brothers). And then: which is the glory for a brother to follow a sister? (It'a good think, not a glorious one). Besides, your translation is not at all "normal": in Italy doesn't exist just ONE translation which talks about a Dido's brother. Main authors admit Silius expression is ambigous. And why Pygmalion doesn't kill him (this brother)as he did for Sichaeus? And why "minor"? Dido is also very young. Why he has to follow her sister in ALL cases of life? So did he commit suicide too? Dido is quoted many many times from Silius, while this "brother" is completely forgotten in all the rest of the work (neither a name): how do you explain this ? (of course Silius can't talk openly of a second husband of Dido because Roman society hated Dido exactly like you). You don't recognize how much absurd is this idea of the brother? Of course Zenobia comes from Dido as you say, but she descends from her directly. More: "iuvenis" is not simply "young": sometimes like here, it means "noble", "patrician", as in Punica 17.631: Phoenissa iuventus ("nobiltà fenicia" per la più importante edizione italiana). "Belides iuvenis" means (in the light of full work, and of his own passage) "a young favorite of Royal Court" or "a Phoenician/Tyrian noble"; exactly the leader of Barca family who CHOSE (this is the glory!) to follow Elissa in a difficult moment (leaving his ancient city) and then he followed her in ALL CASES OF LIFE (SE PARTICIPEM CASUS SOCIARAT IN OMNES), that is a clear poetical bridal formula. After this, BARCA family and ROYAL family joined together: THIS is the meaning of the passage. Another topic: "A pyre in a temple would indeed by absurd" (your words): please respect your own words. Because is just this that Silius says in 1.85/86: Dido dyes in the Juno's Temple, not on the pyre. This means she was aged, and she didn't commit suicide: she was First Priestess of Juno as you know from Virgil, so it's normal she wishes to dye in front to her Goddess. In this same passage, you easily see as Dido is the main Goddess of Carthage, sitting (even in this Punic pantheon) on the throne as in the life, and together statues of Nation founders and heroes. Now I prevent your objection: there is the sword of Aeneas. So what? The sword is "at feet of the Queen", this is a victory trophy, no evidence of a suicide, but evidence of a victory. The Queen forced Aeneas to escape from Carthage as a thief in the night. Remember Hannibal swears in this Temple. About Dido/Tanit (just one fast quote from an important Publisher): "... in passato era diffusa la convinzione che Elissa o 'Allisàt, la "gioconda", fosse un'ipostasi della dea di Cartagine Tanit; e si è creduto anche che Didone "l'errante" fosse un altro nome di Astarte nella sua veste di dea peregrinante..." (segue la citazione di cinque diversi autori). Ancora dallo stesso: "Tanit è una divinità di origine più tarda, venerata in particolare a Cartagine e per questo forse più chiaramente associabile a Didone". I hope we can do more progress. Greetings, Iopa p.s.: I'll be interested to know why you hate so much Dido. You enjoy each bad element you can get about her. Are you a nephew of Aeneas, one Aeneades? You quote Shakespeare: do you know Shakespeare thought about Dido?

---

That you are "doing something new here" is the reason why Dr. Conte's outline of the supposed historical Dido does not belong in Wikipedia.

Please read the guidelines in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not especially 9 and 10.

The Wikipedia should not contain:

9 Personal essays that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, not serve as a vehicle for personal opinions to become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it's preferable to let other people to whom those opinions are important write about them. See Wikipedia:No original research. The place for original research is Wikinfo. Of course essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta-Wikipedia.

10 Primary research.

I don't find your arguments in support of the belief that Virgil and Silius Italicus did not understand Dido to have died on the pyre at all convincing. But even if I did they would not belong here until widely enough accepted to be something that one would expect to see appear here. They should certainly not be placed here by Dr. Conte himself.

From Wikipedia:No original research:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents [ed. An article should address the controversy without taking sides].
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not [ed. A polite rational discussion in the Talk space is probably the way to settle this].

Also, it does no service to your point of view to suggest that I or anyone else who does not accept Dr. Conte's beliefs must "hate Dido".

On another point, since apparently Dido is not the only person in the Aeneid who doesn't appear in a street name in Rome as Dr. Conte originally claimed, I still question the validity of that ancecdote. Do other Phoenician/Carthaginian names appear? Do names of Greeks from the Aeneid appear? If so, are they only a few names that might be considered neutral in respect to Aeneas, such as Diomedes.

Is this naming of streets just a policy of only choosing names of Trojans and Latins from the Aeneid? If so, that policy would not indicate any special hatred of Dido. If there was such a special hatred, it should be documented, perhaps by quotations from articles or popular writings.

jallan 23:33, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I think you want to joke. You talk but you don't listen. In this way is not useful to go on. I spent my time to show you some evidences, and I replied to yours, but you don't reply to mines. Simply you have no arguments. And probably you don't know sources as well. Even a child, a little child knows Dido represented (also symbolically) the worst enemy of Rome. I can quote, but why if you don't listen? I reapeat for tenth time: Dr. Conte reports opinions of such widely followed scholars as Gerhard Herm ("DIE PHONIZIER", translated in all languages), where there are not accepted Greek/Roman contaminations (includes suicide) of original Phoenician mith/historical tradition. Conte's profile is not so far from yours indeed. Suicide and racism against lybian people (they are connected, because Dido kills herself to escape from a Lybian king) are not accepted by a large number of scholars, on the reason that there are not independent reports of Dido's story, and these Greek reports are not coherent, not reasonable, and they come from a deadly enemy of Punic civilization. Thanks for Wikimedia information: I'll inform Conte for his REAL new studies, not for this simple entry of widely accepted statements. The only new element is the second husband. But this is not so revolutionary idea!! If Dido was a powerful Queen, it's obviuos she married again. Silius Italicus defines Hannibal as "Elissaeo": a direct descendant. Not a Conte's idea here. Anyone can read Latin, can get it. Then if we are in love with infelix Dido of Virgil and we need to affirm her suicide because we wrote too many jokes somewhere, it's not my problem. Iopa

Iopa, it's excellent that you're bringing in alternative interpretations of Dido. However, I would recommend integrating the material into the main body of the text, perhaps like: "An alternative viewpoint, based on Pliny's account, [1], is that, in fact, Dido was not..." etc. It's good to ensure questionable interpretations are challenged (even if traditional accepted) and your material would benefit the article through such integration. -- EuroTom 11:48, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

EuroTom, thanks for your democratic sensitiviness. I've integrated "An alternative viewpoint" (with new references), according to your suggest. We can discuss more here. I think now the full article is very good and balanced (one of the best on-line, and of all Encyclopedias). I respect Jallan part. I hope he'll do the same.

Iopa

Good work! I'm going to make a few small changes to a some things. Check if okay - otherwise revert... -- EuroTom 13:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, EuroTom. Your changes are very good and cultured. And you are English I think (I am not! Sorry for my language mistakes). I've just confirmed this sentence: "in such way analogous to Christian one, according to G. Herm". You did confirm it, indeed, but with this symbol (!), it was not visible. Do you prefer to delete it? I've found this theory in G. Herm book; exactly he does the example of English Quakers going to America, to found a new civilization or a new version of old one. Another point very important is this one: "The cult of Tanit survived BEYOND (not until) Carthage's destruction by Romans". Because we have many proofs of this. New Signs of Tanit was found in old punic cities even in Roman Imperial age; with Septimius Severus, African Emperor, as you say so well, Tanit is not only limited to old punic lands, but she enlarge her importance to Rome too. Exactly her cult was one of the more resistant in Pagan culture, because even Saint Augustin (Bishop of Carthage) was worry about it. Only with the SECOND Carthage destruction, Tanit cult estingueshed.

I wasn't intending to remove it - I just wasn't sure how to integrate it into the sentence as it was indeed informative, but broke up the key message that Dido instituted religious and political reforms. It was a stylistic edit, and I was hoping it could be re-added, perhaps in a subsequent sentence to avoid breaking up the flow of the sentence. As Septimius Severus was Emperor long after Carthage's destruction I was clear it had indeed successfully continued (becoming integrated in 'Roman' culture, similar to Greek influences), but the corrections to my edits definitely show this much more clearly.

English is indeed my first language. Je suis parle un peu de Francais, aussi (very badly). Your english is good and infinitely better than most of my fellow nationals' grasps of other languages, for whom being unilingual is de facto and even (worryingly) a badge of pride. I'm not convinced I'm cultured, but I do know a bit about classical civilization from learning basic Latin and a spot of Greek, almost all of which I've now forgotten! (The period is very interesting and influencial, which make learning about it easier and more fun). -- EuroTom 06:40, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again EuroTom. You are very mind-open, you are really a gentleman. Of course your people doesn't need to learn other languages. Instead, we MUST learn...! As ancient peoples had to learn Latin! English is new Latin, the universal language. Did you get a little time to visit www.queendido.org? Can I have your private e-mail, please? Bye, Iopa.

Well I think the learning should be a two way process - you learn more than just the words when you learn a language.

Unfortunately I can't email you it, as you haven't specified an email under your preferences. You're welcome to email me here.

www.queendido.org is a nice website - good work! (However, do note if the work is original and hasn't been published in an academic journal, it's not typically encouraged on Wikipedia) -- EuroTom 00:39, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm agree about "two way process", very good; not so much about the rest. European Law affirms full dignity and parity among public Universities and private Research Institutions. This is a founding stone of new Europe and Science itself. You know as democratic process is difficult and not at all perfect. Anyway, as for www.queendido.org, its webmaster has got three academical degrees; the website itself is "suggested" by several subjects (some Universities, Cultural sites, and Professors Books; see references directly on-line please), and also for official students reading. Now I have added an e-mail address, and I've written you, thanks! Every Wikisurfey is welcome... Iopa.

Dante's inferno

Is it relevant enough to include that Dante listed Dido as a soul in his Inferno (condemned for intemperance rather than suicide, interestingly enough)?

Dear WikiFriend, of course Dante's voice is important. But I remember you these words by Dante: «O voi ch'avete li 'ntelletti sani, mirate la dottrina che s'asconde sotto 'l velame delli versi strani». (Inferno IX, 61-63; see also Virgil's Aeneid IV, 500) I try to translate (I'm not English): "You which have clever not stupid mind, let's understand secret knowledge that is hidden under surface of strange verses". So we can see here Dante was a fellower of classical meaning of Knowledge. For classical Authors (among others Virgil), each Knowlegde had THREE LEVELS. Surface of verse is for PEOPLE that is ruled by POWER Class. Dante respected this secret Law (POWER Class was Church in his times). But each Author wants to express his own real thought. This is in the second and third level of writing. The kind of inclusion of Dido in Inferno is STRANGE, isn't it? This is a way to tell us: "don't stop here, search again, you which have clever not stupid mind: let's understand secret knowledge that is hidden under surface of strange verses". Thank you for your interesting question.

I put a brief sentence in about Dido in the Inferno under the continuing tradition section. Ellsworth 21:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

argument?

what exactly is the argument here? Onther Graco-Roman Apoligist out to slander Carthaginian history? If so please inform me as much as I would like to read through the whole Arguments posted above me I dont have that time. I do have time however the end this miserable campighn derected against Carthage so please tell me what the argument here is I will go on know ot read the Page about Dido the greatest woman to have existed

Talking about Dido is talking about our past and about how we did come here today. An universal argument, indeed. Please don't carry on polemics too much soon and tell us your opinion. Thanks.

T.S. Eliot

Someone needs to find a source for that T.S. Eliot comment. If one searches google for "the most civilized moment in western literature", the only thing that comes up is this wiki page.

Requested move (February 2008)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus that this is the primary topic for the search term "Dido"; thus, I have moved the disambiguation page to the plain title. Dekimasuよ! 10:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Dido (Queen of Carthage) → Dido — Creating space for discussion —Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RM:

This is the way it was originally, which was correct. User: Edgy88 is promoting the singer Dido (singer) and in the process of moves he has made to promote the singer the "Dido (disambiguation)" page has been lost. Need to have Dido go to Dido (Queen of Carthage) with "otheruses" template at the top which will go correctly then to the disambiguation page. Most correct would be if "Dido (Queen of Carthage)" is changed back to just "Dido" as it was originally.--Doug ^talk 15:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. There is no clear primary meaning, so instead Dido should either point to Dido (disambiguation), or Dido (disambiguation) should be moved to Dido. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Because the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize "Dido" as being the queen of Carthage with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity without having to say "Queen of Carthage." --Doug ^talk 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Until the late 1990's the only meanings to the word Dido was the Queen of Carthage and things named after her. The singer will be largely forgotten in a few decades, but the queen will be just as famous. We should avoid recentism. Dsmdgold (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose the dab page should be at the primary name space. Like many I'd say Dido was a queen? I don't believe that you can make the case for a primary use here. If anything the singer may well have the better shot. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - another case of recentism. The Queen is the clear primary meaning. Dumrovii (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vegaswikian. A dabpage is a clear solution to the "which is the primary meaning" dilemma. JPG-GR (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. If anything I'd go with the singer over the queen, but the dabpage seems to be the best compromise. PC78 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Seems to me a pretty obvious case of primary topic, or has knowledge of classical culture really reached such a nadir? I'm not even a classicist by any stretch, but I mean seriously, even I know about Dido. older ≠ wiser 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Clear primary meaning. If Dido Armstrong becomes another Louis Armstrong, get back to us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Dido, Queen of Carthage is a Kit Marlowe play. The singer has a couple chart toppers and some awards, but only a limited subpopulation would know of or be searching for her. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose those few chart toppers makes the singer extremely more likely known Dido in the regular world as opposed to the ivory tower world of a few thousanths of a percentile of people in the mediterranean hisotry world. This should either be the singer or a dab. 70.51.8.220 (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I hate to do so. To assuage my guilt, prefer Dido (disambiguation) to be moved to Dido instead. I'd like to live in a world where classical culture received more respect, but that is not the case. Most readers are probably looking for the singer, and if you count wikilinks to Dido, they most of the time are music pages. She has sold sufficent millions of records for me to overlook Wikipedia:Recentism; she will be as notable as the queen for as long as I think Wikipedia will be around. Callmederek (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Agree that the promotion of the singer is the underlying problem, and that the disambig hatnote needs to be restored... I've put one back, but without using any template, so feel free to improve the format. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Edgy88 continues to promote the singer by removing the disambiguation page in the main article and replacing with the singer's name. He will not participate in this discussion for the reasons doing so. Also agree that the promotion of the singer is the main reason he is doing this. --Doug ^talk 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I see what you mean about User:Edgy88. Andrewa (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the dab page. I never realized how many uses there were for the name! This discussion makes it sound like there are only two. Clearly will be hard to establish a primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, look at the links to Dido and see how many are for Elissa aka the queen. Yes, I have done some cleanup on the links, but given the number of links for other uses, it is hard to prove that there is a primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The other usages actually strike me as an argument for the queen being the primary usage. There are 16 entries on the page, including the queen. Dido, Queen of Carthage and Dido and Aeneas are works of art about the queen. The seven HMS Didos, 209 Dido, the Helleborus cultivar (source), and the locomotives were explicitly named after the queen. There is a stong probablity, given her African heritage, and the classical eduaction of her father, that Dido Elizabeth Belle, was named after the queen. The butterfly was named by Linnaeus himself in 1763. To any European with an education on the 18th century, the word "Dido" could only refer to the queen. It is possible that nuclear reactor was named after the queen. One of the other reactors of the same class was named PLUTO also a name from classical mythology. The Doctor Who planet has no obvious link to the queen, but many of the planets on that list are classical references (Abydos, Agora, Arcadia, Argolis, Aridius, and Astra, just to name the ones that start with A). I am not certain why the character from the Reilly novel is on the disambiguation page, as we do not have an article on her (him?) and the article on the novel does not mention him (her?).

There 16 usages listed, sorted here by proximity to the queen:

1. The queen herself
2. 2 works of art about the queen
3. 4 things explicitly named after the queens (10 things if you count each of the ships separately)
4. 2 items almost certainly named after the queen (Belle and the Butterfly)
5. 1 person (the singer) who our article claims is "informally named" after the queen. This may or may not be so, but it indisputable that the only reason "Dido" is a accepted, albeit rare, English name is because of the queen.
6. 1 item (the Docor Who planet) that is a possible reference to the queen
7. 1 item (the nuclear reactor that) that has tenuous, at best, link to the queen.
8. 3 items (the programming language, the Reilley character, and Fido Dido) that have no obvious connection to the queen, I suspect that name of the programming language is an acronym and the shared name is accidental.
9. 1 item (the human language) that's name indusptiably has no connection to the queen. I would not that this a secondary name.

I would argue that items 1 through 4 are evidence of the queen being the primary usage. This includes half the items on the disamiguation page. Two of the remaining items, the planet and the character, are too minor to warrent their own articlesm, and could not be construed as evidence against as any other usage being primary. Dsmdgold (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did say links to the page and not the dab entries. Try this link. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be two competing views here: One that the Queen of Carthage is the primary usage of the name, and the other that there is no primary usage. A third view that the modern singer is the primary usage seems to have little support, and so far, support for those two competing views is about equal.

But can we really say that, if only half the population support a particular primary usage, that there is one? I don't think so. Andrewa (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The view that there is no primary usage is essentially the view that usage for the singer is as important of the usage for the queen. All other usage are for such minor things, derived from the queen, or known only in extremely specialized situations that they are ignorable. The idea that the singer represents an equal usage as the queen is a reflection of wikipedia's systemic bias towards recent events and pop culture. The queen has inpired works of arts over two thousand years. We have articles on music, painting, literature and film that refer to this usage. The queen has had things as diverse as astroids, locomotives, and warships and butterflies named after her. For centuries she was the main referent for the word "Dido" throughout western culture. The vast majority of articles that refer to the singer are articles on recent pop music: other singers, recording studios, radio stations, albums, and the like. In a century, almost no one will be able to identify one of her songs as belonging to her. Twenty years ago no one had heard of her. Dsmdgold (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not my view at all. If we were to rate usages on how important they are (whatever that might mean) then it's most improbable that two would dead-heat for first place, and I doubt it has happened in this instance. I'm quite willing to concede that this Dido is the most important usage, but it's not overwhelmingly the most important. That's why all usages should be disambiguated. Andrewa (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we can't determine primary usage based on length of usage. I strong believe that we should not have continuing discussions over the issue of primary usage. If there is a question use the dab. It does not hurt anything in the encyclopedia. Deciding to redirect or move a page without the supporting evidence, and not just a discussions consensus, points to a page that is not the correct target for many readers. That's why my point above about how many links to the article are not for the queen. This is a real problem. And that problem is easily fixed by putting a dab page at the main article space. This is clearly the case here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we determine primary usage based on intensity of usage. This includes works created before Dido Armstrong was born which are still being read. She may become as well known as her namesake, as I suppose Madonna may; no evidence to that effect has been produced, and I doubt she has (I have heard of and seen Madonna; I heard of Dido Armstrong on this page). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, I think you missed my point. Although the length of usage is important, the breadth of usage is more so. The queen has inspired works in almost all artistic media, and has had multiple things named after her in a wide variety of fields. This simply isn't true of the singer. In the "real world", the queen is the clear primary meaning, except for some who follow current western pop music, which although it is a minority in the world, is over represented here. Dsmdgold (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not just Queen versus singer. So far as I am concerned, Dido is a reactor class. The fact that there once was a Queen by this name was probably indirectly a factor in choosing the name, but it was really a pronouncable acronym, they all were in those days, at Lucas Heights for example there was a proposed beryllium oxide moderated rig called aborigine primus and it all stood for something. I was never told what dido stood for and some were semi-secret, the full official wording was precious information kept for initiates and party chatter. But it's easy to guess that Deuterium Oxide would have been the last two words. When I say indirectly a factor, the people involved - many of whom I met as a boy - were probably a lot more familiar with Henry Purcell than with Carthage or the Aeneid. Andrewa (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Something to weigh when deciding this case based on WP:RECENTISM. Though this would seem to be a case where a mythical queen known of for millennia is clearly more important than a singer popular for less than a decade, there are issues of population involved. However, because there are so many people alive today (more than have ever lived and died in the history of humanity), greater weight should be placed on the current familiarity than on past familiarity. Assuming significance of a topic can be weighed by relative familiarity (e.g. merely "I know of Dido, Queen of Carthage" or "I know of Dido, popular singer" in this case), broad popular contemporary familiarity can equal or outweigh lasting familiarity that is more restricted in space. In this case, knowledge of Queen Dido is long-lasting (millennia) but is narrow in space during most of that time due to lack of literacy, lack of cultural awareness (i.e., being located outside the Greco-Roman cultural sphere). Knowledge of Dido the singer is confined to a single decade but, based on the record of album sales and concert appearances, it appears to be quite geographically broad (#1 albums in Europe and Asia, Live Aid appearances, &c.) The image below attempts to show what I'm saying graphically with the numbers for both exaggerated for viewing clarity.

I'm not taking either side here and not arguing that mere knowledge of a topic by a certain number of people is per se equivalent to encyclopedic significance. I just wanted to bring this up. — AjaxSmack 00:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A counter example, is the term Styx. The main article is the mythological river. The hugely popular 1970's band is diambiguated. I don't think that anyone is going to argue that this isn't the way it should be. There is a disambiguation page for other terms, such as real world rivers named after the myhlogical one. The same demographics apply, we are just twenty five years past when the band was widely popular. The same thing will happen to Dido Armstrong. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (June 2008)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dido (Queen of Carthage) → Dido — Proposed by another as "uncontroversial", but clearly contested. I am putting it here b/c the fact that "Dido" redirects here makes the conclusion of the previous move request a joke, in my opinion. If the queen is not primary usage, then why does "Dido" redirect here? So long as it will, and it should not be unilaterally and arbitrarily changed, this article should in fact be at that location. All of this adds no more difficulty to the reader searching for the singer than already exists. —Srnec (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

According to the edit history of Dido (disambiguation), the article Dido was moved to Dido (disambiguation) on 26 May 2008 by User:Dbachmann. That move probably shouldn't have been done without discussion. Sam (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Pronunciation

Could anyone write in a pronunciation of "Dido"? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.110.23 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have heard both DIE-doe and DEE-doe. DEE-doe is the correct pronunciation in Latin, but I wonder if DIE-doe is preferred in English. Does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.78.220 (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In English the name is pronounced DIE-doe (long I). And whoever wrote the bulk of this article seems to have had a strange allergy to commas.--72.94.172.49 (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

'back-references"

Virgil's back-references in his Aeneid generally agree with what Justin's epitome of Trogus recorded.

What does "back-references" mean here? And something about the sequence of tense implies that Justin's epitome is earlier than the Aeneid. Now, Trogus's history may have been slightly earlier than the Aeneid (he and Vergil were alive at the same time), but I'm unclear what this sentence is trying to say. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Elissa/Elishat/Dido

This talk page seems unnecessarily contentious and/or defensive. Let's have a bit of clarity guys. Entering Elishat in the search gets a redirect to the Carthage page (it should come here surely?) So how is it that there is no mention of the name variant Elishat on this page or that page? The Lesser Merlin (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Elissa/Alyssa

Within the last few weeks someone has changed all the 'Elissa's on this article to 'Alyssa'. I dont know the reason for this change but Elissa is the original name (Well Elishat is the original Phoenician word while Elissa is a more 'modern' evolution of the name used by Greek scholars) and Alyssa is the current modern spelling. I just wanted to know if there was a sort of consensus to the choice by this user to change 'Elissa' to 'Alyssa' within the article. In my opinion 'Elissa', 'Elishat', 'Alissar' or 'Alissa' are more accurate but I wanted to get a conensus from the community before I reverted the changes done to the article.

"Elissa" is used in the Aeneid, Ovid and more, so it's an actually attested "also known as".  ^davidiad_.: 21:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

'Alyssa' with a -y- has nothing to do with Dido. It's from the plant alyssum (a Greek word). It's just a coincidence that it happens to sound like the Semitic name 'Elissa'/'Alissa.'--72.94.172.49 (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

From non-scientific reading of the Aeneid, I get the impression that Virgil treats the two names virtually as if they were just one name, which is declined Dido, Elissae, Elissae, Elissam, Dido, Elissâ. That is to say, he never seems to use Dido except in the nominative and perhaps vocative case (there is no Didonis, etc.), and he never uses forms derived from Elissa for these two cases.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:8480:AEE8:28A4:FF51 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to mention this but here seems like the most fitting place. There is an ancient Hebrew/Phoenician word inserted in the discussion of the original meaning of Elishat. It is said there to mean "Fire", Esh (or Ish in the more ancient form, now preserved in inflections), but it is written Es/Is with the letter Samekh (that telegraph pole), instead of Esh/Ish with a Shin (which looks just like a W). I don't know how to edit that. 2601:647:5801:9B30:1FF:90F3:4FB4:6984 (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Tohar Yarden

Anyone up for a trim?

I think over the past ten years this article has been added to and added to and added to and is now quite bloated. There is so much content simply tacked on that this article warrants a reorganization/prioritization so the most significant parts are highlighted and lesser content can be edited down or trimmed away.

As it is, I think most readers will read through 3 or 4 paragraphs, scroll and see how exceedingly long the article is and just quit reading. Remember, Wikipedia entries do not have to be comprehensive and include every detail or perspective on a subject...they should just include information that is essential for a basic knowledge on a topic. Links and references can be provided for those avid enthusiasts who want to seek out further knowledge.

Again, the expected reader is someone who is unfamiliar with the Dido and wants a basic background on the figure, not a scholar of the classics. It's great that so many editors feel passionately about contributing to pages in this subject area but in this case, it's just far too long and too much content for the average, interested reader to wade through. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We already have "Ledes" as well as "infoboxes" to accomodate readers who just want basic information. We also have "Simple English Wikipedia" to accomodate those who find it too hard to understand. But if we were ever to adopt a view that we don't have enough room for detailed information and that it should thus be deleted, we would have to delete most of Wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I kinda agree with both comments. I actually think the article omits a lot that readers might be looking for (the classical tradition stuff at the bottom is mostly a list and doesn't really give a well-rounded idea of what the figure of Dido meant in her reception by various aesthetic periods or genres), while at the same time the article manages to be verbose and repetitive—meaning there could be some reorganization and shorter sections within. The intro, however, is quite insufficient for those who only want a "quick read" summary. Doesn't mention the love affair with Aeneas and suicide, which is most likely the info needed if a reader's come here from a brief allusion in a literary work or scholarship. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The page at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC mentions both usage and long-term significance. It allows the consensus of editors to determine which one to follow. In this case the consensus favors making the ancient Dido the primary topic, based on long-term significance. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

---

{{requested move/dated}}

• Dido (Queen of Carthage) → Dido
• Dido → Dido (disambiguation)

– One of the ways to determine a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is when a subject has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than the other subjects associated with the name. I would definitely say that being the credited founder of a major city of the ancient world, a city that would become the capital of one of the major civilizations of the ancient world, provides substantially greater enduring notability and educational value over subjects such as a moderately successful singer, a footballer whose 12-year career involved 24 total appearances and zero goals, and an asteroid about which there is apparently not very much to say. She also had an important role in Virgil's Aeneid, one of the most significant and influential literary works of the ancient world, and has been the subject of a play by Christopher Marlowe and an opera by Henry Purcell that still gets performed today [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (and apparently quite often, too). For comparison to another ancient figure credited with the founding of a major city, Romulus is already the primary topic for Romulus, despite the other entries at Romulus (disambiguation). Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose due to the notability of Dido (singer). Notability isn't temporary. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support – This lady is clearly the primary topic, and comparisons with a little-known singer born in 1971 are spurious, at best. Dido is an important historical figure, portrayed in one of the most important works of Classical literature. I believe her two-thousand or so years grants her the status of origin, not to mention the numerous later works based off the figure herself. Not allowing the proper Dido to attain primary topic status is both absurd from a historical perspective, petty, and evidence of disgusting recentism. I believe the above opposing editor needs to get his priorities straight. RGloucester — ☎ 22:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that subjects that could be confused for one another by their readers if referred to as the same subject should remain disambiguated, and probably always will. The singer still has a significant cultural impact to this day, though basically a one-hit wonder. Thanks for calling me out, by the way. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If someone is confused, they can easily click the link in the hatnote at the top of the article. That has no bearing on whether this lady is the primary topic. She clearly is, of course. She's had millennia of primary topic status for this title, and she will likely have millennia more. When one types in "Dido", one must get to the page about Queen Dido. RGloucester — ☎ 04:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Plus, well, she's at least a two-hit wonder, and I think I've heard a couple of her other songs on the radio, too. Red Slash 17:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per #Requested move (February 2008) this is not the primary topic, there is no priamry topic. Per Google [8] no primary topic exists. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Sure, a minor and little-known singer's webpage will come up first. That's because the singer is alive to make a webpage and hire promoters. What a bunch of utter tosh. Clearly you've not read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which states "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Her Majesty certainly takes that point. I can't believe this type of travesty is even allowed on Wikipedia. Queen Dido is clearly the primary topic of the word "Dido". There is no doubt about that. Zero. Recentism about little-known singers has no place here. RGloucester — ☎ 05:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@IP 65:

Firstly, Consensus Can Change. That discussion was from 2008 - seven years ago.

Secondly, the long-term significance criteria of PRIMARYTOPIC did not exist in 2008. It wasn't introduced until 2011. It does not provide much benefit to refer to a conversation (again, from seven years ago) where the long-term significance of Queen Dido was not properly taken into account. Of course it wasn't - that isn't how things were done in 2008. It's how things are done now, though.

Thirdly, are you familiar with search engine optimization? It's not surprising that Queen Dido's people aren't as good at it as the singer's, what with her being from the ancient world and not presently alive and all. If we based primary topics off of what Google said, galaxy would be about a smartphone. That's not idle speculation, either, take a look. Google Books is by no means perfect, but it's still better than vanilla Google because at least it's not subject to SEO gaming, and if you look at it, you'd barely even know there was a singer. Even Google News, which you'd think would go for the present-day subject over the ancient one prefers Queen Dido - it's where I got all those articles about opera before. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Far more readers use "plain vanilla" Google than the other flavors. It's Google's flagship product, so they have their best people continuously improving it. The Web search results give you a general sense of which topics readers are likely to be looking for. You can take the top Web results and use Wiki's page view tool to do a mathematically precise comparison. I'm not a fan of the "long-term significance" clause. But there is no question that more people want to read about the queen than see a disambiguation page. The eigenvector (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The singer gets 34,000 views a month while the queen gets 14,000. It makes no difference to me which topic is designated primary. But given that there are only two plausible topics, it should be one or the other. See WP:TWODABS. The eigenvector (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support As someone who believes we are writing this encyclopedia to live beyond our generation, I think the enduring notability and educational value clause must be invoked here. However, I would encourage folks in this debate to allow others to express their opinions without such vociferous objections. 1bandsaw (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This person is either a mythical or an actual figure. Reading this article, the history of this person was nearly lost. She has been significant, but it doesn't outmatch the singer, with whom I have acquainted but never met. Also, the stats tells us to wait for ten more years, even when the singer debuted fifteen or sixteen years ago. --George Ho (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how a more than 2,000 year-old historical figure that features in one of the most seminal works of classical literature (along with many derivative works, paintings, sculptures, &c.) is comparable to a singer that no one has heard of or cares about, and certainly won't care about in 50 years. RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Question: who else wants to study the two-millennia-old history figure nowadays? How many college students, married adults, and high school students want to research this person? By the way, the article currently has issues, like lack of inline references. George Ho (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Mr Ho? The western classics are the foundation of western civilisation, and are taught as such in secondary school. That includes the Aeneid. That is why said work has influenced so many subsequent works, and presumably also why there is a singer named "Dido". This figure has had a seminal importance as a woman in western civilisation, right through the 19th century and beyond. Do they not teach the Chinese classics in Hong Kong? RGloucester — ☎ 16:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

When I was attending high school, I never heard of an Egyptian figure named "Dido", not even from my teachers. --George Ho (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Carthaginian, not Egyptian. You could benefit from a good, online encyclopedia. Favonian (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Dido (Queen) undoubtedly has been of enormous cultural significane for Western civilization, and obviously far more than the singer (so far at least ;-). As for the current notoriety for the singer see WP:RECENTISM. Paul August ☎ 17:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - a really significant historical figure. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. Red Slash 17:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the lasting cultural importance of the old lady. Even though I belong to one of the categories targeted by George Ho above as the strategically important readership of Wikipedia, I'm considerably more interested in learning about the queen than the singer. Favonian (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Significant legendary figure, never heard of the others. PatGallacher (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Definite primary topic with far more longevity than any of the others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040606112311/http://www.tonykline.free-online.co.uk/Virgilhome.htm to http://www.tonykline.free-online.co.uk/Virgilhome.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040619025007/http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/dido.htm to http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/dido.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406131254/http://courses.washington.edu/hum523/dido/HeroidesVII(trans).html to http://courses.washington.edu/hum523/dido/HeroidesVII(trans).html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Reorganization

This article desperately needs a reorganization; it is very difficult to read and make sense of it as it stands. The lede gives almost no information, and then you are slammed with a giant wall of text that seems to lack structure. I will try to work on this as I can, but it looks like a pretty big project to me.

The lede should give you some hint as to what you should be expecting below; that means adding a summary about her dubious historicity and the various sources we find her in.

The sections that really need the most reorganization are "Questions of Historicity and Dating", "Early Accounts", and "Vergil's Aeneid". Consider combining/reorganizing section headers.

Consider creating a timeline/table of events so that one can compare what information comes from which sources.

Ikjbagl (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Reincarnation?

I've read somewhere online (forget what link, sorry!) that there was a belief that Dido reincarnated as powerful women such as Zenobia to take vengeance upon Rome. Did ancient Romans believe that?