Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 5

Size of Persian army at Thermopylae
Hi. I'd welcome some input at Talk:Battle_of_Thermopylae where there's debate over what size army should be added to the infobox at the battle's article.

I'm concerned by what appears to me to be a flawed OR analysis of an orginal source. --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Philitas of Cos peer review
I have requested a peer review of Philitas of Cos. Eubulides (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for sparagmos
Hello all. I've just come across the stub article sparagmos and would like to ask if someone from the project would be kind enough to add the original term written in the Greek alphabet, please. It's just a stub, so if anyone has anything to add to it, that'd be great. Many thanks, DionysosProteus (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the Greek. Wareh (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, DionysosProteus (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Classical Greece and Rome
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of Corinth
I have recently developed the stub on the battle of corinth, but i don't know whether or not it can be considered an proper article yet. Please check it out and let me know what you think about it.

Murphy321 (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Philitas of Cos is a featured article candidate
I nominated Philitas of Cos as a featured article candidate; comments are welcome at Featured article candidates/Philitas of Cos. Eubulides (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A pronunciation question
Dear all, I'm hoping you'll be able to resolve a debate for me: how is Alcestis pronounced? Actors I know seem to have a tradition of pronouncing it "al-SES-tis" but I'm assuming that "al-KES-tis" is the Greek version. Could anyone add a pronunciation guide to the article? Many thanks, DionysosProteus (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first is the long-established and traditional English pronunciation. Those who use the second pronunciation (unless they are speaking Latin) would also use the transliterated spelling Alkestis.  However, even Classicists who favor the second spelling system in their publications usually refer to this play by the first pronunciation; it is one of those extremely familiar names like Achilles or Thucydides that resists tinkering.  The article, so long as it carries its current title, should give the first pronunciation; I think the transliteration Alkēstis given adequately indicates how those who use the hybrid Greek-English pronunciations would say the word.  Wareh (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a link to the entry for the Greek word on Wiktionary, which has a pronunciation section. While I agree with Wareh that the traditional English pronunciation should be the one presented in the entry, I imagine some users would like to know the grc pronunciation, and this allows a clear method of presenting that info.  Atelaes (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sparta
Hi. I have just carried out a major edit of Sparta. I would appreciate comments. Thanks. Lexo (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What did I take a picture of in Rome?
Can anyone tell me what the building is in the middle of this picture? This is the Roman Forum with the Temple of Castor and Pollux to the right. The building is at 41.89124°N, 12.48556°W and the picture was taken from the northeast. Thanks! —Wknight94 (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyrrhus
This article has suffered much vandalism in the past. Some people now consider that this is an npov article stating that Ploutarch is an unreliable and non neutral historic(?). Its really bad to see how nationalism can infiltrate in a encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexikoua (talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC) --Alexikoua (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone is playing like a child with reliable sources. The article will remain without these out of the question signs, until someone has something serious to argue with(and I dont mean nationalistic, racist arguments that just a person's nationality makes him unreliable)Alexikoua (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:JMG242.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:JMG242.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Sparta classification
The History of Sparta was given a start rating a couple of years ago. Can someone give it a look over to check whether it has improved since then. Thanks.Dejvid (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Roman consul
I could use some input from any interested experts at Roman consul. Specifically, a debate over a date/period to apply the title in a historically accurate fashion, as opposed to Hypatus, or just plain old Consul. This gets into, essentially, the last Byzantine consul who would also have been considered a legitimate Roman consul. Thanks. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Aristophanic userboxes
I've recently created this userbox featuring an Aristophanic plea for tolerance (quoted from 'The Acharnians'). Others might be interested in adopting it. I am thinking of creating other Aristophanic userboxes, depending on interest/motivation etc. Maybe there is already some kind of project for classical userboxes. Lucretius (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one - this time a plea for co-operation (quoted from 'Peace'). I haven't worked out how to adjust for colour. I've used the English paraphrase as a link to a page that explains the context. Lucretius (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Here is the 3rd (and last?) in the present series. The link explains the context and in turn provides other links to Aristophanes and The Clouds. I think this is not a bad way to promote awareness of aspects of classical literature and language and maybe 'we' (who's that?) can create a collection of boxes for many different authors. Anyhow, it's worth a thought. Lucretius (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC) This is definitely the last one I'll post here. Like the others it links to one of my own sandboxes with an explanation of the context. Ideally all these userboxes should be in a 'neutral' or public space. If you notice the vocative is missing it's because this is not actually quoting Archilochus but Aristophanes echoing Archilochus. And by the way, she's a good looking girl! Looks spookily like Princess Dianna (the face). Lucretius (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've now created a new userbox category 'Classical Latin and Greek Literature' (here: Userboxes) under the general category 'Interests and hobbies'. So far it only features quotes from Aristophanes but hopefully other contributors will add to it. The use of memorable quotes and subpage/sandbox links should greatly expand the reach and utility of the userboxes, I think. Lucretius (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Lysicles
The two articles, Lysicles and Lysicles (general), need disambiguation. They refer to Athenian commanders who appear to have lived in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, respectively. I think it best to rename the first article Lysicles (5th century BC) and the second article Lysicles (4th century BC), with a disambiguation page listing both. Any better ideas, or shall I proceed with the move? - Canglesea (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, and there are no impeding articles. I would just do it.  Do you want help?  --Una Smith (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you will create the DAB page, I'll rename the articles. Canglesea (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just move the current article from Lysicles.  --Una Smith (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. At this moment, there are just 4 incoming links needing disambiguation.  --Una Smith (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like those links are via a template, which has already been fixed; it can take a while for Wikipedia's internal indexing to catch up.  --Una Smith (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Checking contributions by User:24.18.119.54
Could somebody who knows Roman History check the edits made by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.18.119.54? I'm not sure what they're doing is vandalism or is actually improving these articles. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  02:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Tricky. Particularly since some of these articles are of extremely un-notable Romans. But they do need checking (and deleting altogether in some cases). -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Transferred from the Village pump (miscellaneous) page to a page where there's slightly more chance that some action will result. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have glanced through the article Lucius Seius Strabo. I think all the changes were (certainly or probably) improvements. The anonymous contributor


 * 1) removed the alternative name Lucius Aelius Strabo, which was a howler;
 * 2) removed some irrelevant material that belonged in other articles;
 * 3) improved the phraseology, and, more important,
 * 4) made it much clearer what are facts and what are uncertain deductions.
 * On this basis (I don't have time to look at other articles) the contributor is a good historian whose fault is not to have realised that it's better to have an account, and better to explain major changes on talk pages.
 * The article has meanwhile been reverted to its previous mediocre state. And rew D alby  18:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking, Andrew. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Mediocre" incidentally was an unfair term, as I see after re-reading more carefully. But I think User:Steerpike, who initially reverted the article, now agrees with me that the changes were improvements. And rew D alby  20:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all, I wasn't sure if they were good edits, or not. :)   Little Red Riding Hood  talk  00:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent uploading of pages by 67.111.218.66
A few days ago, a whole host of biographies of ancient people got uploaded to Wikipedia from 67.111.218.66. There have been other changes since from other IP numbers and new user names. They are not all to do with Ancient Greece and Rome, but a lot of them are. By the looks of the conversation on Talk:Guo Shoujing, there may be a class project to "improve" certain pages on Wikipedia. Presumably a teacher has handed obscure historical figures to pupils as a project. Among the pages in Classical Greece and Rome affected are: Herodian, Duris of Samos, Titus Labienus (historian), Marcius Turbo, Euclid of Megara, Bassianus (senator), Ardaric, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus, Herophilos, Festus (historian).

The quality of these improvements varies, they rarely have any inline citations, and they do contain mistakes and exaggerations (weasel words and peacock terms), and a lot vague filler. In short, they tend to read like high-school essays. Eventually these contributions are going to have to be edited, trimmed, checked, reverted etc., but at the moment, the writers of these articles seem to be trying to protect their contributions. Singinglemon (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Among other degradations, the interwiki links that these articles used to have are sometimes no longer there. The positive problems, I agree, are that the articles are padded, not encyclopedic, and rely on tertiary sources. I know about Duris of Samos (but have never yet worked on the Wikipedia article) so maybe I'll have a go at it now, and see what happens ... In that case the existing article was based on Britannica 1911, and needed improvement anyway. In some other cases -- e.g. Festus (historian) -- what we had before was so terrible that anything would be an improvement! And rew D alby  21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have (I think) now improved Duris of Samos, with proper references and no padding. There haven't yet been any attempts to revert me. There was actually a book about Duris in 1977; it's surprising that the essayist didn't discover that. And rew D alby  15:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Catullus
I've assigned some ap students to work on catullus articles--so far c. 49 seems like a decent beginning. Any tips or comments appreciated. Drjzh (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)drjzh


 * Yes, here's some advice. First look at the comments just above yours - many contributors are serious about their Wiki articles and they don't like them being used as highschool essays. So here's the advice - tell your students to copy the relevant articles onto their user pages, or onto sandboxes attached to their user pages, and do all their work there. That way they won't get caught up in any edit wars. When you've all finished your work, delete it. Lucretius (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, I'm not sure what 'ap' means but I find it hard to believe that highschool kids are being introduced to Catullus. In fact, this whole thing looks like a hoax to me. Oh rem ridiculum, Cato, et iocosam, dignamque auribus et tuo cachinno! Lucretius (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what ap means either. But I can tell you that back in 74-75 I was studying selected poems o Catullus as a 13-14 year old preparing for Latin 'O'-level. I can recall that there was a lot of sniggering at the name Lesbia. The other set texts were Aenead Book II (I think in an edited version) and some Letters of Pliny the Younger.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AP stands for Advanced Placement--these are courses in U.S. high schools that allegedly do college-level work. Near the end of the course, students in these courses take AP tests, and if they score well enough they can receive college credit (depending on the college/university they go to). Catullus is indeed taught in American high schools, even the naughty bits. Lesbia's name is pretty tame, really.

Drjzh, if you have not read WP:NPOV and WP:OR, which are two of the core content policies at Wikipedia, please do so ASAP. If you and your students don't understand these policies--the basic principle is that Wikipedia reports the opinions of secondary sources--then there will be unfortunate results. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Catullus is more than just naughty. The poem I quoted describes a pederastic rape. Teachers generally are very careful about how they introduce their students to risky ideas and I can't believe that teachers would just point their students at Wiki and leave them to research Catullus on their own. The kids might not mind but wait till their parents get to hear about the kind of things Catullus celebrated! Add this also - the teacher (User:Drjzh) said c.49 looks like a good beginning. He means carmen 49 (topic is Cicero), and the pederastic poem is number 56 (here is a Wikisource copy:[]). If your 16yo son happened to be struggling with issues of sexuality, would you want him reading Catullus in an unstructured way? If your 16yo went on to rape a 12yo acquaintance, wouldn't your legal team make the most of the fact that his teacher steered him towards a poet who treats pederastic rape as a joke? Teachers are trained to be cautious about these things. Anyhow, if it's not a hoax, it's all very odd! Lucretius (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the hypothetical situation you mention, I think I'd rather have my son reading Catullus than a lot of what he could see on the internet (or other parts of Wikipedia). In the situation that Drjzh is in, presumably the students are reading Catullus as part of a class, with some attention to the worldview behind the poems (including their sexual mores)--the Wikipedia assignment is ancillary to the other things they're doing in the class. (I'm going to guess, though, that 56 is not usually on the AP syllabus--but at least one high school teacher I've talked to covers poem 16, after getting permission from the parents to discuss sexually explicit topics.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sexually explicit? Yes and most Dads would say "Sure! He's already seen my Playboy magazines!" And teacher replies "I should have said homosexually explicit". That won't get too many nods of approval in spite of these enlightened times. An introduction to Catullus should be highly structured and it should be kept in the classroom - for the teacher's own safety as well as for the kids. That's my advice to Drjzh. Lucretius (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We are here to build an encyclopaedia. Aramgar (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but somebody wants to bring a school excursion onto the building site and we are discussing safety issues. Lucretius (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I watch every single Catullan article and redirect. There have been some fumblings at Catullus 3 and Catullus 49, but nothing serious. "Safety issues" and "pederastic rape" are complete non-issues. WP:NPOV and WP:OR are, along with WP:N and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If somebody, purporting to be a teacher, asks for advice about student research into Catullus here at Wikipedia, concerns relating to pornographic poems are hardly a non-issue. Issues like that have been known to destroy careers and childhoods. The discussion here is not interfering with your precious work, Aramgar. Lucretius (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Destroy childhoods...? Really? Isn't that a bit much? CaveatLector Talk Contrib 04:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Some poems by Catullus are hardly more than pornography and carmen 56 is hardly more than child pornography. Child pornography certainly destroys childhoods and Catullus is not an appropriate subject for self-directed research by highschoolers. This is so obvious I wonder how anyone can challenge it. Anyway, enough said on this topic by me. Lucretius (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll just say, with all due respect, that I think your definition of "pornography" is obviously rather broad. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 23:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And his reading of Catullus 56 is rather narrow; many things are supported by that text, but none of the participants need be a child, even in the modern sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I had already sailed over the horizon when this canonball splashed in front of me. I am entitled to fire back. I think 'pupulum' pretty much indicates 'a little boy' - in fact my dictionay uses Catullus to demonstrate the meaning. It's a wilfully broad interpretation that insists on taking it any other way. I'm not attacking Catullus. I think he's a great poet - along with myself, he was Rome's signpost to a great literature, until the emperor-toadying poets like Horace and Virgil settled for a quiet life on a nice pension. As for the 'teacher' who was going to set his class loose on Catullus - he has disappeared, which rather confirms my cautionary post, whatever his motives might have been. Now I shall go cruising again, in search of treasures. Lucretius (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help expand and source the article on Hypatus
Could someone take a look at the article on Hypatus and help expand it, or at least add some solid citations? This is essentially the Byzantine title for consul, and I was wondering if:
 * A: We have it named correctly.
 * B: It should just be a redirect to consul, which in turn should have a subsection on Byzantine use of the title.
 * C: Should keep the article, but expand it to indicate the various types of Hypatus (i.e. Doges of Venice using it as an honorific granted to them by the Byzantine Emperor, or actual Byzantine officials carrying out tasks specific to a Hypatus).

Many thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if anyone has looked at this... or if this WikiProject is just stale, but I would appreciate some informed opinions on my request above. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion
Can somebody take a look at Carthage. There's a discussion about what to include in the introduction. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution in ancient Rome
I've just created the article Prostitution in ancient Rome, based on W. C. Firebaugh's notes in his translation of the Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter, which are in the public domain.

Since this text was first published in 1920, it is somewhat out of date, and I would imagine that scholarship has moved on since then. This is thus in great need of cleanup and revision (which is why I'm posting about it here) but it seemed like a good starting point for a proper article. -- The Anome (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm away from my copy of Trying Neaira. Does anybody else have it? CaveatLector Talk Contrib 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Lamachos into Lamachus
Does anyone have the time to do a merge of Lamachos into Lamachus? It is a little out of my area. - Canglesea (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the information in Lamachos is duplicated in Lamachus and the rest of it is junk, so the former should just be deleted. Lucretius (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. - Canglesea (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Help illustrate Wikipedia classic articles; current project-The ancient Roman Comitium and Curia Hostilia
I need some consensus to a couple of illustrations I am working on. They illustrate a number of structures but.....I am finding competing information and discovering new material. So, I request input to alter this image. You can reply here or at my user page. Illustrators are, of course welcome to save the image and alter it, as it is in the Public Domain, but all alteration must be accompanied by clear citations.

Help Illustrate Wikipedia by consensus!

The first image is the same layout as the second so the subjects are the same, the ancient Roman Comitium and the Curia Hostilia (any information about the layout of the Curia Cornelia is acceptable as well)

Tear the heck out of it if you want....no need to be kind, LOL! I don't care. Just be accurate and cite all sources. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

the empty seat
This is a Wiki file picture of a great big seat in the Theatre of Dionysus, Athens. I suspect it held the rear end of the archon basileus or of the priest of Dionysus, though it is hard to tell from this angle 2000+ years later. The file lists it simply as a VIP seat. If anyone knows whose seat it was, please advise. Thanks. Lucretius (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't a seat at about this position left open in all theatres for Dionysus himself? It's possible this is the Dionysian seat, but (like you said) it's really hard to tell from this angle. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 05:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's an inscription on the seat which starts ΗΠΟΛΙΣ; I can't read the rest from the picture. I'll see if I can find a Blue Guide or something else useful later. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the throne was for the priest of Dionysus, but I don't have a reliable source for that fact yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not the seat of a priest but a third century Roman official Marcus Ulpius and his two sons. The inscription may be found a IG II2 3700. Check it out here. Now if you will excuse me, I have some "precious work" to do. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Have fun with those Catullan trifles... --Akhilleus (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I led with my jaw because I'm not afraid to get hit (metaphorically speaking). Genuinely - thanks for the help. I'm not a great fan of the Romans - at least they built roads for the spread of Greek culture - so I'm not sure what role Marcus Ulpius had in Athens, but the inscription suggests he combined his duties with those of archon eponymos. Which suggests that the chair is historically descended from the archon's chair and therefore I could label it the 'archon's chair'. Any disagreements about this? Again thanks. Lucretius (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At the very least it gives a pretty good illustration of what the archon's chair looked like, so I'd say that works. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 05:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He probably wasn't a Roman official (consular was a rank by the third century), he was an Athenian (his deme is mentioned) whose family had been Roman citizens for generations; he was given this extraordinary honor (and the implied tax exemption) for feeding Athens during a famine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks one and all for generous contributions. I've now titled the file at Wikimedia as Theatre of Dionysus and the throne for the archon eponymos (the throne is dedicated to a Roman citizen, Marcus Ulpius, and to his two sons, 3rd Century A.D., in recognition of their charitable works during a time of famine). Lucretius (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dion of Syracuse
Would someone more informed than me please have a go at sorting this article out? It's a shocker. Ericoides (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

merge needed
These two articles need to be merged: The Four Hundred (oligarchy) and Athenian coup of 411 BC. I don't know how to do it. On a more general issue - can an article with only one reference and only three cited sources be awarded a B status? Sicilian Expedition proves that it can. I feel a kind of reverence for the process that results in such mysterious results. Or maybe I've misunderstood something. Lucretius (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merger complete. Feel free to check behind me in case I missed anything. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 10:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnos needs expansion
Currently only a two-item dab; please see Talk:Ethnos.Skookum1 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaius Ateius Capito (tribune)
Could someone review the article Gaius Ateius Capito (tribune) to see whether the "expert needed" label should be removed? I am no expert, but I thoroughly revised the article and provided documentation. The label implies that the information should be regarded with undue caution, but because I make no claim to expertise, and because the person adding the label left no comments about what deficiencies should be addressed, I don't feel I should remove it myself. Unless it's still there in a couple of weeks, at which point I'll just decide nobody cares and I'll take the initiative. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's up to standard (or above), so I've taken the label off. Is the final reference to Quien es quien still necessary? I guess probably not, since you have cited primary/secondary sources fully; unless you disagree, I suggest you remove it. And rew D alby  10:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

New template for Roman architecture
Hello, since there are now quite a few lists on Roman architecture, I tried to create a new template for them:

Any input is welcomed. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What name sounds better: Lists of Roman architecture, Roman architectural lists or Roman architecture lists?
 * 2) What image can we add? Preferably, a featured one of a Roman building.
 * 3) What categories should the template have?
 * Of your three proposed names for the list, #2 or #3 is much better than #1. Wareh (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

template:Classical Greece and Rome
this template is broken, if no importance parameter is given, while a class parameter is, it doesn't work properly. It should set as default unassessed importance. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nereid
Hey folks, it would be VERY GREAT if someone with the necessary knowledge starts some nereid articles (Callianassa, Callianira, Cymo, Doto, Galene, Halimede and Neso). Even if they are stubs, it would be highly appreciated. For with the taxonomic profusion of genera named after them - especially Callianira - we're getting into the most ugly dab hell. (As we get more articles on butterfly genera, this is only getting worse. For some reason, 19th-century entomologists found nereids especially tempting as butterfly genus namesakes.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, at least Callianira might be handled as a dab page, like Eunice already is. But since the nereids are really your critters, I thought I'd ask first if it's OK to change the redirect and make it a dab page. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A stub is a placeholder for a notable subject to which a full encyclopedic treatment can eventually be given. So I'd rather not see stubs on minor mythological figures unless the material is known to exist from which those full articles can eventually grow.  In those cases, the solution would seem to be redirects to Nereid where a listing with brief identifications would be appropriate. Wareh (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Neptune
I'm here asking for expert help in the article Neptune, it is incredibly short when compared to the length and quality of similar articles such as Jupiter or Venus. Although in general, all the articles on the Roman gods are pretty short, but Neptune is probably the worst off. --Pstanton (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Julio-Claudian dynasty
An I believe misguided editor has recently changed the article on the Julio-Claudian dynasty to exclude Augustus from the dynasty, on the grounds that he was only a Julian by adoption and not a Claudian at all. I think this is a misapprehension about what "Julio-Claudian" means - Augustus to Nero was a single dynasty, conventionally known as the Julio-Claudian because it included Julii and Claudii. On the basis of this change there's also a minor revert war over whether Claudius was the third or fourth Julio-Claudian emperor. Perhaps some better-educated Classicists could give it their attention and establish a consensus? --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There is not complete consensus on the matter, some will say that Augustus is a Julio-Claudian, others will say he is not.

It's just another one of those problems of ancient history created by modern attempts to classify and define 'eras' or 'dynasties'.

There are references against Augustus being Julio-Claudian:
 * Ancient Rome by C. Mackay
 * The Cambridge Ancient History, chapter by T.E.J Weidemann
 * The Oxford Illustrated History of the Roman World
 * A History of the Roman World from 30 B.C. to A.D. 138 by E.T. Salmon

Likewise, there are references for Augustus being a Julio-Claudian (you can find them if you look, I can't be bothered).

As such, I'd say the person who did the edit is justified in removing him, but I'd also say you're equally justified in thinking he should be there.

You see, the definition applied by the editor seems to be 'someone who had a connection to both the Julian gens and the Claudian gens'. Therefore for this person, Augustus - because he did not have any connection to the Claudian gens - was not a Julio-Claudian.

Whereas it seems your definition is that a Julio-Claudian refers to someone who had a connection to either the Julian gens or the Claudian gens.

Both are valid definitions, but neither is right.

Short of finding the first recorded use of 'Julio-Claudian' and working out that use's definition, there's no right answer.

I suppose you could try and create a definition for the article in question, but you'd probably have to get it accepted first.

Alternatively, you might want to create a separate section discussing whether Augustus or not was a Julio-Claudian, and present both points of view.

Knobbishly (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Knobbishly, none of those references you cite above support your hypothesis that Augustus is not part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Do you have any others? 124.168.143.102 (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Dougal Longfoot\


 * I think you'll find they do.




 * "Augustus was succeeded by four emperors related to him in various ways, and this dynasty is called the Julio-Claudian because the first two successors belonged to Augustus' family, the Julii, while the last two were Claudii" (from Ancient Rome by C. Mackay, p. 192). If you were in doubt as to what Mackay meant by this dynasty it is clearly Tiberius to Nero as in the title of that chapter, the dates given for the Julio-Claudian dynasty are AD 14 - AD 68.


 * The Oxford Illustrated History of the Roman World (which I'm looking at right now) wherein Augustus is referred to as being separate from the Julio-Claudians.


 * A History of the Roman World from 30 BC to AD 138 has the first chapter called 'Augustus Princeps' and the second called 'The Julio-Claudian Emperors', therefore Augustus to the mind of that writer is separate from the Julio-Claudian dynasty.


 * Finally, in The Cambridge Ancient History, the title 'Julio-Claudian' is not used in reference to Augustus, only to the Princepes Tiberius to Nero.


 * Knobbishly (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Augustus is certainly Julio-Claudian; the open question is whether Julius Caesar should be considered one of the dynasty. (All the other members are of the gens Claudia, by birth or adoption; anyone who wished to exclude Augustus should call it the Claudian dynasty.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to bulldoze this topic? Augustus is not certainly a Julio-Claudian by any length.


 * There are clearly different definitions of what constitutes a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (shown in practice above).


 * I've been through this over on the Julio-Claudian dynasty talk page, where I wrote:


 * "Julio-Claudian has apparently been defined as either (1) a person connected to both the Julian gens and the Claudian gens or (2) a person connected to either the Julian or the Claudian gens. Therefore the Julio-Claudian dynasty is either a dynasty that (1) consists of rulers connected to both the Julian gens and the Claudian gens or (2) consists of rulers connected to either the Julian or the Claudian gens. (And, as I've said before, seeing as both definitions are used, we put them both in the article)."


 * And no, Julius Caesar is not a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.


 * Knobbishly (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the great majority of ancient historians consider Augustus to belong to the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Yes, it is in some respects an artificial construct made for the convenience of modern historians; for that very reason it's beside the point to give reasons why Augustus could be excluded.  I'm not even sure that Knobbishly's citations purporting to show that some have excluded Augustus from the company of the Julio-Claudians do show that.  For example, Knobbishly uses the chapter structure of E.T. Salmon's History of the Roman World to demonstrate this.  But Salmon in that book chose to write five chapters (obviously constituting a natural unit) on Augustus and his age, more than he gives to the other Julio-Claudians together.  That is a sufficient explanation, and it is pure speculation to suppose that he was motivated by anything other than the awkwardness of introducing a third level of hierarchy to his book (above "chapter" and "part").  Obviously Augustus is a very special and crucial phenomenon within this group, and I think that accounts for scholarly discussions that hold him to one side.  For example, in Scullard's Gracchi and Nero, a reference to "Augustus' Julio-Claudian successors" may seem to introduce a separation, but when it comes time to write a section on art and architecture in the "Julio-Claudian period," we hear at once of the building activity under Augustus.  Even there, Scullard has to say, "The great architectural changes that Augustus had brought about in Rome have already been mentioned (pp. 228ff.)."  Surely we don't need to require that Salmon begin his post-Augustus section with "The career of Augustus has already been mentioned (pp. ...)" or struggle to find a more convenient name for the continuation of his story than "Julio-Claudian."  I think it just doesn't occur to him that anyone could miss the point that the founder of a dynasty, however special his status, has to be included in the dynasty (this also applies to "Augustus was succeeded by four emperors related to him in various ways, and this dynasty is called the Julio-Claudian": it strains the limits of interpretation to think that "this dynasty" does not include reference to the person to whom they were all "related in various ways"!).  Any number of treatments that separate out Augustus as worthy of separate and deeper study as the founder of the principate can be found.  If there are really ancient historians who believe it is in error to include Augustus as a Julio-Claudian, (A) I'd like to see quotations (not unexplained Google Books links) here where they say it (and if they really believe it, they will say it explicitly, because they would need to correct the widespread impression that Augustus is part of the dynasty), and (B) I'd like to see a plausible argument or survey to falsify my claim about the "great majority."  Wareh (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, you've got two arguments going here.


 * Part 1 - Ancient Historians (consisting of the first (and second?) sentence and the last sentence).


 * In which you ask for evidence from me to disprove a theory by you for which you have provided no evidence...


 * How about you provide some (any) evidence to support your statement that "the great majority of ancient historians consider Augustus to belong to the Julio-Claudian dynasty"?


 * Part 2 - Salmon's book (pretty much everything else you've written)


 * Wherein you make the rather lengthy argument that Salmon has Augustus separate from the Julio-Claudians because it was too awkward for him to add a third title level and, by extension, that a third level is actually necessary (it isn't - Augustus comes under 'Part 1', the Julio-Claudian Emperors under 'Part 2' (called THE JULIO-CLAUDIAN EMPERORS)... I fail to see how anyone could think a third level would 'clarify' things or that any more clarification was needed).


 * And then you actually try to support your theory by suggesting that it wasn't that Salmon purposely had Augustus separate from the Julio-Claudians, but that either (A) he didn't know what he was doing or (B) he was simply being careless (in other words, you're saying the guy who wrote the 367-page book didn't know what he was doing, but you do... uh huh).


 * The fact is if Salmon's intention was to have Augustus separate from the Julio-Claudians, then he would have structured the book exactly how it is structured.


 * Don't try to 'correct' Salmon's book according to your own viewpoint. If Salmon had wanted to do what you're talking about, he would have done so.


 * He didn't.


 * Knobbishly (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to Wareh's convincing points, I would suggest that an article whose second sentence is "Augustus was a Julian by adoption, and was never a Claudian" has been written by editors who are focused on scoring points against each other and being "right" in a very narrow and pedantic sense, instead of writing an article that's a useful source of information for the general reader. Especially since Julio-Claudian redirects to Julio-Claudian dynasty, the article needs to make the point that the term can denote the emperors alone or the imperial house as a whole (i.e., Julia the Younger can be usefully called a Julio-Claudian), and that the term can also denote an era of history that begins with Augustus and ends with Nero. It would also be a good idea to remember that readers of the article may have absolutely no idea what "Julian" and "Claudian" mean. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So essentially what you're saying in that first sentence is that someone should not try to make any article "right" (and actually insulting those people who do try to make what they write as accurate as possible!), but should just make it as accessible as possible and if there's a few errors... too bad? Nice.


 * Knobbishly (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I'm saying that editors who are focused on being "right" have a narrow idea of what being "as accurate as possible" means, and it often results in articles that aren't useful for the general reader. The current version of Julio-Claudian dynasty, happily, is an improvement over the old. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So if I'm reading this right, you're against people being verbose in the articles? Yes? Knobbishly (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I'm against people writing the article to satisfy their ideas of what's "right", rather than considering the needs of the reader. Starting the article with long parenthetical notes about why Augustus isn't a Julio-Claudian may satisfy Wikipedia editors, but it does little for readers who start out with little knowledge. If you don't know what "Julian" and "Claudian" mean, and have only a hazy idea of who Augustus was, this version won't mean much to you; this version will be more helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion is really rather pointless. The list of authors which include Augustus in the Julio-Claudian dynasty (explicit or implicit) is probably endless. Allow me to present a selection.
 * Books:
 * Birley (1999 [1971). African Emperor: Septimius Severus
 * "What is more, by the series of adoptions begun by Nerva, and continued by Trajan, Hadrian and Pius, the dynasty to which [Commodus] belonged had now produced a sixth emperor (one more than the Julio-Claudians)." (p. 57)
 * Griffin (1984). Nero: The End of a Dynasty
 * Dynasty includes Augustus. No reviews of the book (Seager, Waters) challenge this inclusion.
 * Mellor (1990). From Augustus to Nero: the First Dynasty of Rome
 * Need the title say more?
 * Seager (1973). Tiberius
 * Thornton (1989). Julio-Claudian Building Programs: A Quantitative Study in Political Management
 * Covers Julio-Claudian building from 27 BC until 68 AD. Therefore, Augustus is included.


 * Articles:
 * Baldwin (1973). Robin Seager: Tiberius (review), The Classical World, Vol. 66, No. 8, p. 477
 * Bingham (1997). The Praetorian Guard in the Political and Social Life in Julio-Claudian Rome. (Docotoral Thesis)
 * Deals with the Praetorian Guard from Augustus to Nero. Therefore, Augustus is included as a Julio-Claudian.
 * Sutherland (1947). The Personality of the Mints under the Julio-Claudian Emperors. The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 47-63
 * Deals with Julio-Claudian coinage ranging from Augustus to Nero. As above.
 * Thornton (1986). Julio-Claudian Building Programs: Eat, Drink and Be Merry, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 35, No. 1, p. 29
 * Like the book, this article chronicles Julio-Claudian building between 27 BC and 68 AD. Page 29 quite explicitly provides a chart outlining the building activity during this period.
 * Waters (1963). The Second Dynasty of Rome. Phoenix, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 198-218
 * Explicitly refers to the first dynasty of Rome as including Augustus to Nero. Further examples:
 * "But all the changes in this scenario merely underline the fact that Augustus meant to found a dynasty." (p. 199)
 * "The so-called Lex de Imperio Vespasiani concerns not imperium, which was acquired through other means, but certain powers for which precedents are drawn from the more reputable of the Julio-Claudians, Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius." (p. 212)
 * Wilkes (1972). Julio Claudian Historians, The Classical World, Vol. 65, No. 6, pp. 178-183
 * "Augustus founded a dynasty and another succeeded after civil wars in 69" (p. 178)


 * To my knowledge, no literature exists (and I mean absolutely none) which actively challenges the assumption that Augustus is a Julio-Claudian. From the above listed works, no authors have referred to or acknowledged this inclusion as being controversial. As far as evidence of ancient authors is concerned, I've stated before that Wikipedia should not derive its content from primary material. That means that technically speaking, the opinion of ancient historians is more or less irrelevant for the purpose of this article. I hope that settles it? This discussion has gone on for far too long. --Steerpike (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are writers who put Augustus in the Julio-Claudian dynasty, full marks for recognising that (and thank-you for listing some of them as per my initial request). However, as I have noted, there are also writers who exclude Augustus from the Julio-Claudian dynasty - in line with your "From the above listed works, no authors have referred to or acknowledged this inclusion as being controversial" statement, I respond: do any of those who review the books I have noted as excluding Augustus from the Julio-Claudian dynasty refer to that exclusion as being controversial or challenge that exclusion?


 * There have been endless arguments here implying that not having Augustus in the Julio-Claudian dynasty is 'wrong', when it is not. Having Augustus as a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty is a matter of preference. You can have him in there if you want (most people on this site, at least, prefer to have him in there), but you can also not have him in there. The article should reflect that option.


 * As to the ancient historians, you can blame Wareh for that. "Ancient historians" to my mind refers to people like Suetonius and Tacitus.


 * Knobbishly (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would still challenge your assertion that there are authors who literally exclude Augustus from the Julio-Claudian dynasty. First of all, in a chronological account of the history of Ancient Rome (which is what the books you've cited earlier present), there are political reasons to "treat" Augustus as separate from his successors, because he represented the transition from the Republic to the Empire. That's not the same as "excluding" him from the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Second, a dynasty isn't a dynasty until the ruling house produces a second ruler, so from a chronological point of view, it makes sense for some authors to only start speaking of the "Julio-Claudian dynasty" upon the accession of Tiberius. But again, that's not the same as excluding Augustus from the dynasty. The founder always retroactively becomes part of the dynasty once his successor steps into place. No-one would suggest to exclude Vespasian from the Flavian dynasty either. Lastly, even if these authors saw Augustus as being separate from the Julio-Claudians in a literal sense, I think it's obvious that the literature which does include him is still in the vast majority.


 * In the mean time, I've looked up several reviews of E.T. Salmon's book A History of the Roman World from 30 BC to AD 138 (Last, 1945; McDermott, 1945; Scramuzza, 1946; Benario, 1958). While all reviewers acknowledge the book is competently written and a good overview of the subject it aims to represent, they don't quite enthusiastically endorse it either, calling the work rushed (which Salmon himself admits in the introduction) and narratively muddled. Hugh Last even calls to attention Salmon's confusing distinction between Julians and Claudians in the Julio-Claudian dynasty. So to return to your earlier statement Knobbishly: "in other words, you're saying the guy who wrote the 367-page book didn't know what he was doing". To an extent, "yes", it would seem so. Second, Salmon's book was published in the 1940s (and revised sometime during the 1950s), whereas my above references (excepting Sutherland) are from the 1960s onwards. To me, all this slightly discredits Salmon's work to be considered as a reference on Wikipedia. In any case, it seems that the current consensus among historians is to include Augustus among the Julio-Claudians. Chronological accounts may still prefer to "treat" him separately of course, but that is an altogether different matter.


 * You've also asked for evidence that the (purported) exclusion of Augustus is cited as being controversial. There are no such references, but that's all the more reason to NOT address this "controversy" on Wikipedia. It may be a glaring inconsistency to you, but if it's not commented upon by academic literature it should not be commented upon here. And like I said, I don't see the point in mentioning a debate which is so clearly tilted in favour of the "inclusion" theory.


 * To summarise my points:
 * Narrative considerations may motivate treating Augustus separately from the Julio-Claudian dynasty in a chronological work
 * Even if some authors did exclude Augustus from the Julio-Claudians, it's still a minority view
 * If the "controversy" is uncommented upon by academics, it should remain uncommented upon here
 * To present these (clearly unbalanced) sides of the debate would be confusing to readers.
 * Therefore, I am against inserting this "debate" into the article on the Julio-Claudian dynasty --Steerpike (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Steerpike's point is so correct that there is no honest way around it. I wish only to state that (A) Knobbishly ignored many important points in what I wrote before (for example, that the Mackay quote he adduced supported including Augustus), (B) when I referred to "ancient historians" I meant, of course, modern scholars of ancient history (sorry for any ambiguity); as Steerpike suggests modern scholars are the authoritative source for Wikipedia's purposes, not only for a subject like this one that is a modern construct of scholarship anyway, but even for articles that aim to present ancient facts and opinions.  As long as Knobbishly is denying the accepted definitions of professional historians' terminology with "was certainly not!" etc., and is silent in response to the request from two others to produce a single instance of an actual reliable source aiming to correct the widespread commonplace that Augustus is considered founder & thus part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (Steerpike has now reinforced my point that "if they really believe it, they will say it explicitly"), it is hard for me to treat the objection more seriously than as an effort to disrupt or insert original research into articles. Wareh (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh you again.


 * Point (A) - could you possibly be any more vague as to what you are referring to? It makes it virtually impossible for me (or anyone for that matter) to respond.


 * Point (B) is a blunder on your behalf - "ancient historians" does not "of course" refer to "modern scholars of ancient history". As such, I'm going to ignore all discussion deriving from that error.


 * Wow, now you're actually attacking my expression "was certainly not!"... how does that affect the substance of anything I've said? Cheap shot, buddy.


 * If you'd actually read everything I'd written, you would know that I'm not "denying the accepted definitions of professional historians' terminology", nor am I trying to "correct the widespread commonplace that Augustus is considered founder & thus part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty" - I've already acknowledged that some people (a majority, it seems) prefer to include Augustus in the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The point I have been making is that there are those who do not include Augustus in the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and that they are not wrong by excluding him.


 * Knobbishly (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave a very specific example under (A); if you search this page for "Mackay" you will see your quotation, and you will see where I suggest that you have misunderstood that same quotation.  This is important because, if there were really extensive evidence for your position, the few individual pieces you've shared would not begin to crumble so easily. (B) is not a blunder but another case of a usage familiar to those who read and write about ancient history.  If its unfamiliarity to you is in your mind reason to ignore my suggestions, that seems pretty arbitrary.  I think part of the problem here is this: many of us who have studied ancient history and have heard our teachers and colleagues (and countless books and articles) always include Augustus as a Julio-Claudian regard it as scholarly common knowledge and would like to see some less tenuous evidence before believing that the usage is seriously and deliberately questioned by any of the modern scholars who use the term.  It is easy to see why you are tempted to cry that this is a double standard, but now that you admit "a majority, it seems," perhaps you will consider reexamining the strength of your evidence for "there are those who do not include Augustus." For that matter, put yourself in contact with some professors of Roman history and ask them if there are those who do not include Augustus as a Julio-Claudian, and inform us here of what they say.  If you come up with anything less selective and tendentious to show that anyone clearly rejects the consensus usage of Steerpike's sources, then I would gladly reconsider my views.
 * I regret carelessly misquoting you; you actually said "was not certainly a Julio-Claudian." That's a quite reasonable way to express your real doubt on the subject, but if you look more carefully at all the evidence here, I believe you will start to suspect that Augustus' standing as a Julio-Claudian really is more certain (and that his exclusion really does violate the accepted meaning of the term, i.e. is "wrong"). To speak more carefully, I suspect that your denial of the consensus of usage is based on specious and accidental evidence (evidence that appears stronger to someone who Googled in pursuit of it than probably to the authors of the works in question). The Roman historian down the hall from me, asked if he had ever noticed anyone doubting Augustus' inclusion, said he had not (he also quickly came up on his own with the Knobbishlian technicality a doubter might be insisting on, though he was hard-pressed to imagine a sound motive for the innovatory usage, which excludes the dynasty's founder from the dynasty).  Yes, that's anecdotal too, but you do have to wonder whether a classificatory usage that professionals haven't heard of really merits consideration by an encyclopedia.
 * You are also quoting me out of context. Steerpike and I want you to find a scholarly author who clearly feels the need to "correct the widespread commonplace," and "explicitly."  As long as you don't find us one, it's necessarily going to be an inductive process to determine the truth, and, if the result is overwhelming probability and consensus on one side, it would be poor work to have the encyclopedia give the false impression of disagreement.  Wareh (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of the "Nerva-Antonine Family Tree"
I've been browsing through the Adoptive Emperors, and I've noticed that someone has put up a "Nerva-Antonine Family Tree" (as can be seen on this page.

Here is my problem:

Since when was Marcus Aurelius was related to Trajan or Hadrian?

On what basis is this claim made?

I have seen this connection crop up numerous times across the internet, and some times in (?)books, but not a single one of these 'sources' has ever been able to provide any primary evidence for this connection.

As such, I am intending to remove all mention of this connection unless someone can come up with some genuine evidence to support it.

Knobbishly (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * They were related by adoption, as the family tree indicates. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they were related by adoption and the family tree does indicate that, but I was referring to a genetic relationship, which the family tree also shows.


 * Rupilia Faustina was not the daughter of Matidia, and, by extension, Marcus Aurelius was not descended from Trajan's sister, Marciana.


 * There is no primary evidence to support such a claim, and so, I intend to delete any reference to it.


 * Knobbishly (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a look into this. The problem seems to hinge on whether Libo Rupilius Frugi, the father of Rupilia Faustina, was the husband of Salonina Matidia. As you say, there doesn't seem to be any primary evidence to support this claim. I created a page on Libo Rupilius Frugi, in which I added a quote from Anthony Birley, which explains who first came up with the theory (although not the reasons why). As you suggest, it does look rather dubious. I think the pages on Salonina Matidia and Rupilia Faustina will have to be changed. Singinglemon (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you taking the time to find where this bogus connection came from, as, like I said, I have seen it quite often and always wondered how it came about. I would be happy to make the changes myself, but I just want to check first that someone else doesn't already have these articles in their sight. Knobbishly (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the effort Knobbishly, but what you're trying to do right now essentially constitutes original research. Articles on Wikipedia should draw their content from professional secondary literature. It is not a place to argue against the prevailing academic view, however wrong you think it might be. And it's certainly not the place the offer our own interpretations of primary evidence (or its lack). That is the job of professional historians. So I'm sorry but if the current literature supports this family connection (and Birley is a respected author in the field), the connection will have to stay. --Steerpike (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should make it clear, Anthony Birley does not support the family connection. Knobbishly has raised a good point. It's the current Wikipedia articles on Salonina Matidia and Rupilia Faustina which are presenting speculative "original research" as clear facts. These pages should, at most, merely mention that such a family connection has been suggested, and then cite Birley who finds the idea "increasingly implausible." Singinglemon (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)