This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Diocletian 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Diocletian is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 25, 2010. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 20, 2005, November 20, 2006, November 20, 2007, November 20, 2008, November 20, 2009, November 20, 2010, November 20, 2011, November 20, 2014, November 20, 2015, November 20, 2017, November 20, 2018, November 20, 2021, November 20, 2022, May 1, 2023, and May 1, 2024. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In introduction: "Of course this was purely a political favor done by a Senator after a blistering affair."
I see that this article cites ancient sources directly, which isn't generally accepted because ancient sources are not WP:RS. Since this promotion is from a decade ago, it could certainly stand to get looked at again at Featured article review. b uidh e 08:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The more I review this article's sources, the more concerned I am that this article doesn't fulfil the FA criteria. Concerns are outlined below:
I'm considering this a second notice for a possible FAR, and will indicate as such as WP:FARGIVEN. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 ( talk) 14:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
www.stnicholascenter.org/how-to-celebrate/resources/liturgical/sermons/orthodox/saint-nicholas-reflection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.228.0 ( talk) 22:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Marking here that I will be re-writing this article in my userspace to align it with featured article standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Do you want to gut the article, or dumb it down? The featured article standards are not that great. I have seen articles losing useful sections, just to please a reviewer. Dimadick ( talk) 10:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Noting: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=5030553&diff=1056613863&oldid=1056599459#Diocletian SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Family tree entry for Constans is mislinked. Should be: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constans 47.205.124.128 ( talk) 18:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
In his military reforms section, it is stated that Lactantius criticized Diocletian for the troop increases. Treadgold also maintains that a large increase in the number of soldiers occurred in Diocletian’s reign. However, in the Wikipedia page about the late Roman Army, a relatively thorough analysis concludes that Treadgold is most likely incorrect in his observation between statements made by John of Lydus (who concluded about 400k effectives) and Zosimus (who concluded 581k). The Wiki page states the following (significantly paraphrased by me):
[Treadgold argues that John was stating the start of Diocletian’s reign, while Zosimus stated the end. However, Treadgold also concludes that the army size remained constant throughout the Crisis, which is absurd. Furthermore, Zosimus has been pegged as unreliable, given he stated 60,000 Alemmani deaths at Strasbourg in 357, while Ammanius stated 6,000-8,000. Finally, It would be strange for John to give out the number of men at the beginning of Diocletian’s reign, when he could easily give out the peak number of effectives. Finally, Agathias and Zosimus may have given out the official number of men, rather than the actual, as units may have been significantly damaged from the crisis and other wars.]
I simply want Diocletian’s page to be revised in order to reflect this analysis, given that Treadgold is most likely incorrect. However, am I still unsure if this is truly the right point of view, and if a true expert can patch me up, that would be great. Thank you! Aurelianberries ( talk) 05:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Removed from the article because they are generating Harvref errors: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Religion: He persecuted Christians, crucifying more than any other emperor. Around 304, he imposed very cruel death penalty on Saint Wit, a boy of 12 who refused to convert to roman pagan religion. He imposed the traditional polytheistic religion of the Romans. After abdicating, he committed suicide on December 3 311! 190.224.136.54 ( talk) 04:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Two IP editors have now changed the discussion of Diocletian's death from saying that "some" suggest that he committed suicide to that "[the] majority of historians" say this. The source cited does not support this claim, but the most recent editor introducing this claim says in their summary to this edit that "many other sources outside of wiki say so!" It is possibly true that this is the majority opinion – Brill's New Pauly says that he killed himself, though the Oxford Classical Dictionary merely says that he died – but we can't say so based on a forty-year-old source which says nothing of the sort! So: is this the majority opinion? What are the sources? Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 14:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I saw in the article, I don't understand the symbols, but if they are not referring to dee-ock-lay-tee-an, it's wrong. Middle More Rider ( talk) 23:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Diocletian 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Diocletian is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 25, 2010. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 20, 2005, November 20, 2006, November 20, 2007, November 20, 2008, November 20, 2009, November 20, 2010, November 20, 2011, November 20, 2014, November 20, 2015, November 20, 2017, November 20, 2018, November 20, 2021, November 20, 2022, May 1, 2023, and May 1, 2024. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In introduction: "Of course this was purely a political favor done by a Senator after a blistering affair."
I see that this article cites ancient sources directly, which isn't generally accepted because ancient sources are not WP:RS. Since this promotion is from a decade ago, it could certainly stand to get looked at again at Featured article review. b uidh e 08:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The more I review this article's sources, the more concerned I am that this article doesn't fulfil the FA criteria. Concerns are outlined below:
I'm considering this a second notice for a possible FAR, and will indicate as such as WP:FARGIVEN. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 ( talk) 14:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
www.stnicholascenter.org/how-to-celebrate/resources/liturgical/sermons/orthodox/saint-nicholas-reflection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.228.0 ( talk) 22:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Marking here that I will be re-writing this article in my userspace to align it with featured article standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Do you want to gut the article, or dumb it down? The featured article standards are not that great. I have seen articles losing useful sections, just to please a reviewer. Dimadick ( talk) 10:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Noting: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=5030553&diff=1056613863&oldid=1056599459#Diocletian SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Family tree entry for Constans is mislinked. Should be: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constans 47.205.124.128 ( talk) 18:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
In his military reforms section, it is stated that Lactantius criticized Diocletian for the troop increases. Treadgold also maintains that a large increase in the number of soldiers occurred in Diocletian’s reign. However, in the Wikipedia page about the late Roman Army, a relatively thorough analysis concludes that Treadgold is most likely incorrect in his observation between statements made by John of Lydus (who concluded about 400k effectives) and Zosimus (who concluded 581k). The Wiki page states the following (significantly paraphrased by me):
[Treadgold argues that John was stating the start of Diocletian’s reign, while Zosimus stated the end. However, Treadgold also concludes that the army size remained constant throughout the Crisis, which is absurd. Furthermore, Zosimus has been pegged as unreliable, given he stated 60,000 Alemmani deaths at Strasbourg in 357, while Ammanius stated 6,000-8,000. Finally, It would be strange for John to give out the number of men at the beginning of Diocletian’s reign, when he could easily give out the peak number of effectives. Finally, Agathias and Zosimus may have given out the official number of men, rather than the actual, as units may have been significantly damaged from the crisis and other wars.]
I simply want Diocletian’s page to be revised in order to reflect this analysis, given that Treadgold is most likely incorrect. However, am I still unsure if this is truly the right point of view, and if a true expert can patch me up, that would be great. Thank you! Aurelianberries ( talk) 05:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Removed from the article because they are generating Harvref errors: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Religion: He persecuted Christians, crucifying more than any other emperor. Around 304, he imposed very cruel death penalty on Saint Wit, a boy of 12 who refused to convert to roman pagan religion. He imposed the traditional polytheistic religion of the Romans. After abdicating, he committed suicide on December 3 311! 190.224.136.54 ( talk) 04:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Two IP editors have now changed the discussion of Diocletian's death from saying that "some" suggest that he committed suicide to that "[the] majority of historians" say this. The source cited does not support this claim, but the most recent editor introducing this claim says in their summary to this edit that "many other sources outside of wiki say so!" It is possibly true that this is the majority opinion – Brill's New Pauly says that he killed himself, though the Oxford Classical Dictionary merely says that he died – but we can't say so based on a forty-year-old source which says nothing of the sort! So: is this the majority opinion? What are the sources? Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 14:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I saw in the article, I don't understand the symbols, but if they are not referring to dee-ock-lay-tee-an, it's wrong. Middle More Rider ( talk) 23:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)