Talk:Julius Obsequens

Untitled
The article does not state whether Julius Obsequens lived in the 4th century AD or BC. Could someone clarify?

Paul Murphy

Unidentified Flying Objects 2100 years ago
Why is this person included in Wikipedia? These are snippets of writings compiled in circa 450 CE based on other writing of more than 500 years earlier which are lost, that only in the context of a modern humans experience could possibly be Unidentified Flying Objects. An Unidentified Flying Object 2000 years ago was probably a meteor. Whoever wrote this article is superimposing their personal modern experience with that of someone 1500 years earlier based on writing that the author says may have originated 500 years before that (but we will never know). They had no conception of a Unidentified Flying Object in the modern sense... Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Untitled
Having just read the Loeb Classical Library "Julius Obsequens" this morning I do not find the referenced quote given in the text for 42 BC (p. 315). It does read like some of the text in 91 BC, but again the text quoted for 91 BC is not consistent with Loeb either [(p. 291, (Livius Troso is not mentioned at all among other things)].

There is some very interesting text by this author that makes one wonder (if one should want to), but this wiki-article is bad scholarship. I would ask why would anyone post an article on a book they clearly hadn't read nor checked their references?

My reference: Loeb Classical Library:  Livy, Vol. XIV "Julius Obsequens" by Alfred C. Schlesinger ©1959 Harvard University Press, Complete text, Latin and English, is on Pages 238-319. Their Latin text is of Rossbach (Leipzig, Teubner, of 1910) which in turn was based upon the Aldine, edito preceps of 1508, as mentioned in the article.

Thomas Rudder

Disputed section
I added a 'disputed section' template with the quotes since Yours, Kleuske (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I doubt wether the translations are correct. In the first quote a fax ardens is mentioned which my dictionary translates as either burning torch or burning meteor, and fax seems to be a general name for heavenly bodies.
 * 2) I doubt even, and reading the comments above, i am not alone in that, that the actual quotes the translations are based on are correct.
 * 3) The context of these quotes is omitted as are any number of strange and wondrous things Obsequens mentions. This is sheer, unadulterated quote mining.
 * 4) If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
 * Since this section and the one above were added to this talkpage (more than a decade ago!) the Julius Obsequens quotes have been corrected. Even so, this is textbook WP:QUOTEFARM and so I have removed them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)