Antinous has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 9, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Antinous article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Antinous appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 November 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
I have deleted the image captioned "Antinous Mandragone" for several reasons. Firstly, although it has some resemblance to Antinous images, the hair arrangement makes it fairly clear that it's a woman. Antinous may have been a catamite, but he wasn't a drag queen. Secondly, a Google image search for "Antinous Mandragone" does not turn up any independent verification of this work, nor does a search for "Antinous Louvre". A general search for "Antinous" turns up hundreds of images, but not this one. Thirdly, if this an Antinous bust in the Louvre, its striking qualities should make it at least as well known as the other Antinous busts in the Louvre, in the Vatican and at Delphi - and it isn't at all well known. Fourthly, I went through the Louvre looking specifically for Antinous images, and I certainly didn't see this one. Of course I may have missed it - it's a big place - and I may be quite wrong. But I'd like to see some sources for the assertion that this is Antinous. Adam 00:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The bit about the mythological character should be merged with Antinous son of Eupeithes. -- LakeHMM 08:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Did Hadrian and Antinous met in 123 or 124 for the first time?
I removed the following, as it is uncited and seems quite doubtful.
Please feel free to discuss and cite. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your action. Adam 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there are many pagans (of many ages) who are actively worshipping Antinous, but they are not Wiccans. You'll note the websites of several of these in the links which have been added.- Alfrecht 07:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I can say this that yes there are many Pagan's worshipping Antinous,I am one and everyone that I have met have not been Neo-Pagans but Recons. Remeber that Antionus' religion in the ancient past was Syncretistic just as it is today,but that did not make the ancient worshippers of him Neo-pagans or wiccans either,just as it does not make modern worshippers Neo-pagans or wiccans! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.102.20 ( talk) 02:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The New Cultus of Antinous Hadrian’s Deified Lover and Contemporary Queer Paganism Ethan Doyle White Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 20 No. 1, August 2016; (pp. 32-59) DOI: 10.1525/novo.2016.20.1.32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.179.75 ( talk) 20:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
We're using more space for images here than text. Rendering lots of media on a subject is the purvue of Wikimedia Commons. I think that four images here has passed "distracting" and well into "cluttered". Jkelly 01:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have again deleted the Mondragone Antinous, since it appears from the above discussion, and other opinions I have been given, that it is a modern work. Adam 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that having a twelve-thumbnail gallery here is excessive. That's what Wikimedia Commons is for. Jkelly 20:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Antinous unimportant? Are you kidding, he is possibly the most known face from antiquity.
I have removed a picture: Image:NAMA Antinoüs.jpg|From Patras, from Hadrian's Villa in Tivoli, because it cannot be both from Patras and from Tivoli, and the tag in the picture itself says the bust is from the NAM in Athens. -- 5telios 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This gallery is incredibly valuable to those learning the subject. Please do not delete these, I even hope that more are added, as Hadrian had so very many, it is great to see as many as practical to comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.11.59 ( talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
"Another version has it that Hadrian had the empire searched for the most beautiful youth, and chose Antinous." Oh. Doesn't even the most gullible Wiukipedian recognize the Cinderella motif in this? Claptrap. -- Wetman 22:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above poster, in addition, it is not proven that they were lovers. It has been suggested that because of the frosty relations between Hadrian and his wife that Hadrian saw Antinous as a son he never had. All views and opinions should be presented, and the reader should be allowed to draw his own conclussions. In any case, personal relations should not figure into the introductory paragraph in my opinion, especially since it is a debated subject. MarcusAntoninus 20:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Antinoüs was a slave. If a Roman wanted to have an adopted son, he could only adopt a free man. It is obvious that the relation between Hadrian and Antinoüs was erotic. That's a silly joke to say that he was not Adrian's lover.
He wouldn't have been a slave, being younger and of a lower social position he would have been the Eromenos of the two and Hadrian the Erastes, but that doesn’t make him a slave. Their relationship would have followed the standard Greek pederasty tradition, likeiest the Athenian version to be specific, meaning the relationship would have been mutually consensual. Although if the emperor makes a pass at you its probably not a good idea to shoot him down.
This is pretty silly. A Roman who wanted a son adopted one, as did 4 of the 5 emperors of the Nerva-Trajanic dynasty. Indeed Hadrian adopted 2 sons, Lucius Aelius Caesar and Antoninus Pius. Antinous is nowhere described as a slave and in any case Roman law permitted manumission and permitted the adoption of freed slaves. It is, however, extraordinarily unlikely that the Roman elite would have accepted a provincial of Greek origins with no connections to the dynasty as an adoptive son because that would have made Antinous an at least presumptive successor.
On the death of Lucius Aelius Caesar, who actually was an adoptive son, Hadrian did none of the things, deification, city-naming, temple-building, that he did on the death of Antinous. The 'son he never had' theory fails. The vast majority of ancient and modern authors describe Antinous as a lover not a putative replacement son. The article should reflect this view. -- Alan ( talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Does any-1 know that galleries s*cxs? (!!!) There are 19 images of that Antin-guy, in the gallery, about 16 too many. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 21:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Leave the galleries alone. They enrich and add a very nice touch to the article,and let us come to our own conclusions about interpretations of 'the best known face from the ancient world'.If Hadrian loved his friend,so what? There is little enough love in the world,ancient of modern.Even the Vatican seems happy to leave a Roman emperor's gay lover in pride of place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frglee ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The Nerva–Antonine family tree would be a nice thing to have in some article in which it would serve a function, but it does not do so here. There is no blood relationship between Antinous and anyone in the family, which makes the family tree quite irrelevant to the subject of the article. I suggest it be moved to some article where it will be useful.
"The secrets of the imperial bedchamber must for ever to denied to us, and, in view of all the hideous and speculative publicity about their love, Hadrian and Antinous are surely entitled to keep this ultimate and intimate secret." Lambert, op, cit., p. 98. Fatidiot1234 ( talk) 23:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
For someone who only has eight lines of biography, having almost eight screens worth of ancient literary sources mentioning him, copied out in full, seems excessive. How about a few choice passages, with further links, if available, to the rest? Rootlet ( talk) 04:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
As should be clear from Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, it is against Wikipedia's policy to include vast tracts taken directly from primary sources, whether they are copyrighted or not. Thus I have gone ahead, been bold, and deleted the masses of un-referenced quotation from Roman and early Christian texts that currently litter this article. I have also added in referenced information from secondary (academic) sources briefly describing these texts. However, that is not to say that we cannot re-introduce select sections of these sources in future, if they are of obvious utility. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If you must add era tags, please keep the neutral "BCE" and "CE". I would prefer it in this form. Lupus Bellator ( talk) 17:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is Hadrian's family tree in an article about Antinous. Also, why is Antinous listed as Hadrian's spouse in that family tree? Regardless of the nature of their relationship, there is no evidence that they were ever considered spouses in the culture and society of their time, either by others or between themselves. 122.105.157.209 ( talk) 13:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that it is entirely untrue that "bisexuality was the norm in the upper echelons of Roman society by the early 2nd century". Homosexuality, and "bisexuality", were entirely alien to Roman traditions, and certainly never the norm, or even common. Royalcourtier ( talk) 08:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Source? Fatidiot1234 ( talk) 20:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Antinous. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ladylever/collections/antinous.aspWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Antinous. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not even trying to make a joke here. I was told somewhere that another spelling of this name is 'Anoos'. Maybe that was a joke? I don't know. Does anyone have any corroboration? -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 04:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 04:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Antinous → Antinoös – Antinoös is the proper translation of the name Ἀντίνοος. Antinoüs is also possible, as a Latinized form, but the present name "Antinous", is the worst of all worlds because, lacking a diaeresis, there's nothing to notify the reader that the two vowels at the end are not pronounced as a diphthong but as two separate sounds. This is mostly a typographic issue, but one where, unlike many published sources, we are not limited to avoiding diaereses by publishers' style guides which occasionally (and lazily) discard it. Indeed, Wikipedia guidance for Romanization of Greek recommends a diaeresis where such a one exists in Greek, as in this case.
These points were raised when the page Antinoöpolis was moved by consensus Talk:Antinoöpolis#Requested_move_19_January_2020 to its present name. The proposed change would also ensure uniformity not only with the Egyptian city where the youth was deified, but with articles with similarly doubled- omicron names, like Heroön, Boötes, Meröe, etc. In English-language academia the "-oös/-oos" is usually preferred to the Latinized "-oüs/-ous", and in either case the diaeresis going missing is an artefact of difficulties with printing with ink, a casual attitude to orthography, or an immersion in Italianate art-history, in which the Latinate "Antinous" is often used for statuary, etc. GPinkerton ( talk) 18:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
pinging editors who contributed to the Antinoöpolis Request Move in January: @ P Aculeius:, @ Khruner:, @ A. Parrot:. Also notifying WP:CGR
The "Condemnation and Decline" section claims that Pausanias was a critic of the cult of Antinous, but the cited passages from him say nothing critical at all. It also claims that Lucian and Julian were critical, without giving any citation. Does anyone have corroboration for these claims? This seems to need a revision. -- Uiscefada ( talk) 21:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The part about his death lists several theories about his death, but suicide is not mentioned. While I might be expressing some modern (and layman) bias, I do find this rather peculiar—it sounds like the most obvious motivation for someone who is effectively a sex slave for the strongest man in the world, who is also about 35 years older than him. Is there no scholarship examining this? שונרא ( talk) 23:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The article’s discussion of Roman sexuality, to say nothing of some of the comments on this talk page, need to be corrected and updated in light of the now-standard reference on the subject, Craig A. Williams’ Roman Homosexuality, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). Antinoos69 ( talk) 07:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Coldupnorth ( talk · contribs) 16:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Good day, I will undertake the GA review of this article and will list my comments and findings below. Thank you.
Coldupnorth (
talk)
16:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This article was a pleasure to read. It it is generally well written and is sufficient to cover all the key points a likely reader would want. I have identified a few issues I would like you to consider. Importantly, there are a few instances where additional references should be added. Overall, it is nearly at GA. Please address the below comments accordingly. Thank you. Coldupnorth ( talk) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
23:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Unlimitedlead ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @ Unlimitedlead: Great article! I'm going to assume good faith with the offline sources but other than that this article is great. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
In June 2023 Hadrian and Antinous were the subject of the podcast The Rest is History by Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook. [1] Sandbrook is a well-known British historian, author, columnist and television presenter. I think this podcast is notable and entirely reliable. 205.239.40.3 ( talk) 13:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
References
It was in Athens in September 128 that they attended the annual celebrations of the Great Mysteries of Eleusis, where Hadrian was initiated into the position of epoptes in the Telesterion. It is generally agreed, although not proven, that Antinous was also initiated at that time. What does this mean? BhamBoi ( talk) 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
Antinous has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 9, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Antinous article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Antinous appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 November 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
I have deleted the image captioned "Antinous Mandragone" for several reasons. Firstly, although it has some resemblance to Antinous images, the hair arrangement makes it fairly clear that it's a woman. Antinous may have been a catamite, but he wasn't a drag queen. Secondly, a Google image search for "Antinous Mandragone" does not turn up any independent verification of this work, nor does a search for "Antinous Louvre". A general search for "Antinous" turns up hundreds of images, but not this one. Thirdly, if this an Antinous bust in the Louvre, its striking qualities should make it at least as well known as the other Antinous busts in the Louvre, in the Vatican and at Delphi - and it isn't at all well known. Fourthly, I went through the Louvre looking specifically for Antinous images, and I certainly didn't see this one. Of course I may have missed it - it's a big place - and I may be quite wrong. But I'd like to see some sources for the assertion that this is Antinous. Adam 00:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The bit about the mythological character should be merged with Antinous son of Eupeithes. -- LakeHMM 08:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Did Hadrian and Antinous met in 123 or 124 for the first time?
I removed the following, as it is uncited and seems quite doubtful.
Please feel free to discuss and cite. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your action. Adam 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there are many pagans (of many ages) who are actively worshipping Antinous, but they are not Wiccans. You'll note the websites of several of these in the links which have been added.- Alfrecht 07:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I can say this that yes there are many Pagan's worshipping Antinous,I am one and everyone that I have met have not been Neo-Pagans but Recons. Remeber that Antionus' religion in the ancient past was Syncretistic just as it is today,but that did not make the ancient worshippers of him Neo-pagans or wiccans either,just as it does not make modern worshippers Neo-pagans or wiccans! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.102.20 ( talk) 02:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The New Cultus of Antinous Hadrian’s Deified Lover and Contemporary Queer Paganism Ethan Doyle White Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 20 No. 1, August 2016; (pp. 32-59) DOI: 10.1525/novo.2016.20.1.32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.179.75 ( talk) 20:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
We're using more space for images here than text. Rendering lots of media on a subject is the purvue of Wikimedia Commons. I think that four images here has passed "distracting" and well into "cluttered". Jkelly 01:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have again deleted the Mondragone Antinous, since it appears from the above discussion, and other opinions I have been given, that it is a modern work. Adam 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that having a twelve-thumbnail gallery here is excessive. That's what Wikimedia Commons is for. Jkelly 20:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Antinous unimportant? Are you kidding, he is possibly the most known face from antiquity.
I have removed a picture: Image:NAMA Antinoüs.jpg|From Patras, from Hadrian's Villa in Tivoli, because it cannot be both from Patras and from Tivoli, and the tag in the picture itself says the bust is from the NAM in Athens. -- 5telios 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This gallery is incredibly valuable to those learning the subject. Please do not delete these, I even hope that more are added, as Hadrian had so very many, it is great to see as many as practical to comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.11.59 ( talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
"Another version has it that Hadrian had the empire searched for the most beautiful youth, and chose Antinous." Oh. Doesn't even the most gullible Wiukipedian recognize the Cinderella motif in this? Claptrap. -- Wetman 22:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above poster, in addition, it is not proven that they were lovers. It has been suggested that because of the frosty relations between Hadrian and his wife that Hadrian saw Antinous as a son he never had. All views and opinions should be presented, and the reader should be allowed to draw his own conclussions. In any case, personal relations should not figure into the introductory paragraph in my opinion, especially since it is a debated subject. MarcusAntoninus 20:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Antinoüs was a slave. If a Roman wanted to have an adopted son, he could only adopt a free man. It is obvious that the relation between Hadrian and Antinoüs was erotic. That's a silly joke to say that he was not Adrian's lover.
He wouldn't have been a slave, being younger and of a lower social position he would have been the Eromenos of the two and Hadrian the Erastes, but that doesn’t make him a slave. Their relationship would have followed the standard Greek pederasty tradition, likeiest the Athenian version to be specific, meaning the relationship would have been mutually consensual. Although if the emperor makes a pass at you its probably not a good idea to shoot him down.
This is pretty silly. A Roman who wanted a son adopted one, as did 4 of the 5 emperors of the Nerva-Trajanic dynasty. Indeed Hadrian adopted 2 sons, Lucius Aelius Caesar and Antoninus Pius. Antinous is nowhere described as a slave and in any case Roman law permitted manumission and permitted the adoption of freed slaves. It is, however, extraordinarily unlikely that the Roman elite would have accepted a provincial of Greek origins with no connections to the dynasty as an adoptive son because that would have made Antinous an at least presumptive successor.
On the death of Lucius Aelius Caesar, who actually was an adoptive son, Hadrian did none of the things, deification, city-naming, temple-building, that he did on the death of Antinous. The 'son he never had' theory fails. The vast majority of ancient and modern authors describe Antinous as a lover not a putative replacement son. The article should reflect this view. -- Alan ( talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Does any-1 know that galleries s*cxs? (!!!) There are 19 images of that Antin-guy, in the gallery, about 16 too many. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 21:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Leave the galleries alone. They enrich and add a very nice touch to the article,and let us come to our own conclusions about interpretations of 'the best known face from the ancient world'.If Hadrian loved his friend,so what? There is little enough love in the world,ancient of modern.Even the Vatican seems happy to leave a Roman emperor's gay lover in pride of place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frglee ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The Nerva–Antonine family tree would be a nice thing to have in some article in which it would serve a function, but it does not do so here. There is no blood relationship between Antinous and anyone in the family, which makes the family tree quite irrelevant to the subject of the article. I suggest it be moved to some article where it will be useful.
"The secrets of the imperial bedchamber must for ever to denied to us, and, in view of all the hideous and speculative publicity about their love, Hadrian and Antinous are surely entitled to keep this ultimate and intimate secret." Lambert, op, cit., p. 98. Fatidiot1234 ( talk) 23:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
For someone who only has eight lines of biography, having almost eight screens worth of ancient literary sources mentioning him, copied out in full, seems excessive. How about a few choice passages, with further links, if available, to the rest? Rootlet ( talk) 04:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
As should be clear from Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, it is against Wikipedia's policy to include vast tracts taken directly from primary sources, whether they are copyrighted or not. Thus I have gone ahead, been bold, and deleted the masses of un-referenced quotation from Roman and early Christian texts that currently litter this article. I have also added in referenced information from secondary (academic) sources briefly describing these texts. However, that is not to say that we cannot re-introduce select sections of these sources in future, if they are of obvious utility. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If you must add era tags, please keep the neutral "BCE" and "CE". I would prefer it in this form. Lupus Bellator ( talk) 17:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is Hadrian's family tree in an article about Antinous. Also, why is Antinous listed as Hadrian's spouse in that family tree? Regardless of the nature of their relationship, there is no evidence that they were ever considered spouses in the culture and society of their time, either by others or between themselves. 122.105.157.209 ( talk) 13:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that it is entirely untrue that "bisexuality was the norm in the upper echelons of Roman society by the early 2nd century". Homosexuality, and "bisexuality", were entirely alien to Roman traditions, and certainly never the norm, or even common. Royalcourtier ( talk) 08:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Source? Fatidiot1234 ( talk) 20:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Antinous. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ladylever/collections/antinous.aspWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Antinous. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not even trying to make a joke here. I was told somewhere that another spelling of this name is 'Anoos'. Maybe that was a joke? I don't know. Does anyone have any corroboration? -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 04:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 04:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Antinous → Antinoös – Antinoös is the proper translation of the name Ἀντίνοος. Antinoüs is also possible, as a Latinized form, but the present name "Antinous", is the worst of all worlds because, lacking a diaeresis, there's nothing to notify the reader that the two vowels at the end are not pronounced as a diphthong but as two separate sounds. This is mostly a typographic issue, but one where, unlike many published sources, we are not limited to avoiding diaereses by publishers' style guides which occasionally (and lazily) discard it. Indeed, Wikipedia guidance for Romanization of Greek recommends a diaeresis where such a one exists in Greek, as in this case.
These points were raised when the page Antinoöpolis was moved by consensus Talk:Antinoöpolis#Requested_move_19_January_2020 to its present name. The proposed change would also ensure uniformity not only with the Egyptian city where the youth was deified, but with articles with similarly doubled- omicron names, like Heroön, Boötes, Meröe, etc. In English-language academia the "-oös/-oos" is usually preferred to the Latinized "-oüs/-ous", and in either case the diaeresis going missing is an artefact of difficulties with printing with ink, a casual attitude to orthography, or an immersion in Italianate art-history, in which the Latinate "Antinous" is often used for statuary, etc. GPinkerton ( talk) 18:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
pinging editors who contributed to the Antinoöpolis Request Move in January: @ P Aculeius:, @ Khruner:, @ A. Parrot:. Also notifying WP:CGR
The "Condemnation and Decline" section claims that Pausanias was a critic of the cult of Antinous, but the cited passages from him say nothing critical at all. It also claims that Lucian and Julian were critical, without giving any citation. Does anyone have corroboration for these claims? This seems to need a revision. -- Uiscefada ( talk) 21:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The part about his death lists several theories about his death, but suicide is not mentioned. While I might be expressing some modern (and layman) bias, I do find this rather peculiar—it sounds like the most obvious motivation for someone who is effectively a sex slave for the strongest man in the world, who is also about 35 years older than him. Is there no scholarship examining this? שונרא ( talk) 23:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The article’s discussion of Roman sexuality, to say nothing of some of the comments on this talk page, need to be corrected and updated in light of the now-standard reference on the subject, Craig A. Williams’ Roman Homosexuality, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). Antinoos69 ( talk) 07:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Coldupnorth ( talk · contribs) 16:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Good day, I will undertake the GA review of this article and will list my comments and findings below. Thank you.
Coldupnorth (
talk)
16:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This article was a pleasure to read. It it is generally well written and is sufficient to cover all the key points a likely reader would want. I have identified a few issues I would like you to consider. Importantly, there are a few instances where additional references should be added. Overall, it is nearly at GA. Please address the below comments accordingly. Thank you. Coldupnorth ( talk) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
23:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Unlimitedlead ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @ Unlimitedlead: Great article! I'm going to assume good faith with the offline sources but other than that this article is great. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
In June 2023 Hadrian and Antinous were the subject of the podcast The Rest is History by Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook. [1] Sandbrook is a well-known British historian, author, columnist and television presenter. I think this podcast is notable and entirely reliable. 205.239.40.3 ( talk) 13:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
References
It was in Athens in September 128 that they attended the annual celebrations of the Great Mysteries of Eleusis, where Hadrian was initiated into the position of epoptes in the Telesterion. It is generally agreed, although not proven, that Antinous was also initiated at that time. What does this mean? BhamBoi ( talk) 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).