This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gaius Marius 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: 1 |
![]() | Gaius Marius 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
That's a picture of a bust of Sertorius. Definitely not Gaius Marius — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F720:F00:4862:1D6:72E8:AC32:C779 ( talk) 09:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a link in the "Reforms of Marius" section to the wikipedia entry for celebrated historian Sir Richard J Evans, a specialist in the history of 20th century Germany. It is clear, if you look at the footnote, that the source is in fact a 1995 phd thesis submitted by a student in South Africa called Richard John Evans. I submit that this is unlikely to be the same person as Sir Richard J Evans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4tess ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
"Plutarch then anonymously relates that Marius" 100.15.127.199 ( talk) 17:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Some, however, say that his ambitious nature was completely revealed during his illness by his being swept into a strange delusion. He thought that he had the command in the Mithridatic war, and then, just as he used to do in his actual struggles, he would indulge in all sorts of attitudes and gestures, accompanying them with shrill cries and frequent calls to battle. Plutarch is relating what "some... say", which I think is adequately reflected by that phrasing. Would you (or anyone else) propose an alternate phrasing? Ifly6 ( talk) 22:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The Scipio Asiaticus bust has been removed, and another image inserted in its place, which presumably also doesn't depict Marius. Seems to me like there should be some discussion on this, since the Asiaticus sculpture is probably too famous to warrant an unexplained removal, even if we know the traditional identification with Marius is incorrect. Avilich ( talk) 15:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Deedman22: Re the recent change image change, I reverted per the existing consensus to retain the old (possibly misattributed) bust. Ifly6 ( talk) 15:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Digital Herodotus: Do you have a source for the attribution of the changed image? Ifly6 ( talk) 18:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Cerebellum: Hello there! I just wanted also to ping you about the timeline. I have no idea how that's set up or made, so I mostly ignored it during my rewrites. It may, however, be worthwhile to make sure that the dates there line up with the dates reported in the article text. (Hopefully, I'm not putting too much on your plate!) Ifly6 ( talk) 14:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
C. Marius C. f. C. n. (14, Supb. 6) Q. 121 ?, Tr. Pl. 119, Pr. 115, Promag. (Propr. ?) Farther Spain 114, Leg. Lieut. 109–108, Cos. Numidia 107, Procos. 106–105, Cos. II 104, III 103, IV 102, V 101, VI 100, Leg., Amb. 97, Procos.? 90, Leg., Lieut. 90, Procos. ? 88, 87, Cos. VII 86, Augur 97–86.
This article, along with several other articles about ancient Romans, was changed to use a different infobox, {{ infobox officeholder}}. In consequence, there's discussion about which infobox to use and how at Talk:Julius Caesar#Infobox and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Infoboxes for Roman office-holders as a more central location. NebY ( talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The image in the Infobox is of a coin which doesn’t do a good job of portraying what Marius looked like, is basically a stick figure. The image should be changed to the bust of Marius which shows in great detail what he looked like
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marius_Chiaramonti_Inv1488.jpg Friedbyrd ( talk) 01:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The IP 58.164.39.43 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been very insistent that the coin image should be disturbed:
Image is at least of a person's face rather than a minuscule cartoon, regardless coin is presented on page lower down; the phrase 'so-called' is inappropriate academically to my mind, it is smug and immediately repellent.
Whilst the coin is definitely 'Marius', it is not to any reasonable standard a recognisable image of a person, and is on balance less worthy than a potentially suspect bust. Phrase "so-called" is smug and inappropriate.
This matter has been discussed at some length already. There are no busts, heads, etc which have any hard basis as being depictions of Marius. They are not potentially suspect
: it's just almost certainly (95+ pc) not him; every head recovered during and after the Renaissance fetched a higher price if someone called it a depiction of FAMOUS_PERSON_HERE
.
The further objection to the phrase so-called
as unacademic seems very irregular when such busts are called so-called
in well-respected books and journals. Eg two marble portraits of unknown Roman aristocrats in the Munich Glyptothek, the so-called Marius... and the also so-called Sulla...
[1] and Giuliani has associated, for example, the so-called Marius and Sulla portraits in Munich with the tomb
.
[2]
Ifly6 (
talk)
08:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
References
@ Rotideypoc41352: Thanks for reminding me (via the Watchlist) that updating was necessary in this article to reflect changes on the Marian reforms. I largely wrote both articles; I should have taken action to reconcile them earlier. Ifly6 ( talk) 05:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The willingness of the soldiers to kill fellow Romans changed after the Social War, not due to a reformist Marian vision: "if Sulla's army had been unwilling to march on Rome... then the outcome would obviously have been completely different, no matter how power-hungry Marius or Sulla were". [1]is a cuckoo edit. Flower 2010 connects the willingness of the soldiers to Marius' putative reform. Ifly6 ( talk) 22:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gaius Marius 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: 1 |
![]() | Gaius Marius 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
That's a picture of a bust of Sertorius. Definitely not Gaius Marius — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F720:F00:4862:1D6:72E8:AC32:C779 ( talk) 09:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a link in the "Reforms of Marius" section to the wikipedia entry for celebrated historian Sir Richard J Evans, a specialist in the history of 20th century Germany. It is clear, if you look at the footnote, that the source is in fact a 1995 phd thesis submitted by a student in South Africa called Richard John Evans. I submit that this is unlikely to be the same person as Sir Richard J Evans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4tess ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
"Plutarch then anonymously relates that Marius" 100.15.127.199 ( talk) 17:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Some, however, say that his ambitious nature was completely revealed during his illness by his being swept into a strange delusion. He thought that he had the command in the Mithridatic war, and then, just as he used to do in his actual struggles, he would indulge in all sorts of attitudes and gestures, accompanying them with shrill cries and frequent calls to battle. Plutarch is relating what "some... say", which I think is adequately reflected by that phrasing. Would you (or anyone else) propose an alternate phrasing? Ifly6 ( talk) 22:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The Scipio Asiaticus bust has been removed, and another image inserted in its place, which presumably also doesn't depict Marius. Seems to me like there should be some discussion on this, since the Asiaticus sculpture is probably too famous to warrant an unexplained removal, even if we know the traditional identification with Marius is incorrect. Avilich ( talk) 15:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Deedman22: Re the recent change image change, I reverted per the existing consensus to retain the old (possibly misattributed) bust. Ifly6 ( talk) 15:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Digital Herodotus: Do you have a source for the attribution of the changed image? Ifly6 ( talk) 18:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Cerebellum: Hello there! I just wanted also to ping you about the timeline. I have no idea how that's set up or made, so I mostly ignored it during my rewrites. It may, however, be worthwhile to make sure that the dates there line up with the dates reported in the article text. (Hopefully, I'm not putting too much on your plate!) Ifly6 ( talk) 14:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
C. Marius C. f. C. n. (14, Supb. 6) Q. 121 ?, Tr. Pl. 119, Pr. 115, Promag. (Propr. ?) Farther Spain 114, Leg. Lieut. 109–108, Cos. Numidia 107, Procos. 106–105, Cos. II 104, III 103, IV 102, V 101, VI 100, Leg., Amb. 97, Procos.? 90, Leg., Lieut. 90, Procos. ? 88, 87, Cos. VII 86, Augur 97–86.
This article, along with several other articles about ancient Romans, was changed to use a different infobox, {{ infobox officeholder}}. In consequence, there's discussion about which infobox to use and how at Talk:Julius Caesar#Infobox and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Infoboxes for Roman office-holders as a more central location. NebY ( talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The image in the Infobox is of a coin which doesn’t do a good job of portraying what Marius looked like, is basically a stick figure. The image should be changed to the bust of Marius which shows in great detail what he looked like
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marius_Chiaramonti_Inv1488.jpg Friedbyrd ( talk) 01:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The IP 58.164.39.43 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been very insistent that the coin image should be disturbed:
Image is at least of a person's face rather than a minuscule cartoon, regardless coin is presented on page lower down; the phrase 'so-called' is inappropriate academically to my mind, it is smug and immediately repellent.
Whilst the coin is definitely 'Marius', it is not to any reasonable standard a recognisable image of a person, and is on balance less worthy than a potentially suspect bust. Phrase "so-called" is smug and inappropriate.
This matter has been discussed at some length already. There are no busts, heads, etc which have any hard basis as being depictions of Marius. They are not potentially suspect
: it's just almost certainly (95+ pc) not him; every head recovered during and after the Renaissance fetched a higher price if someone called it a depiction of FAMOUS_PERSON_HERE
.
The further objection to the phrase so-called
as unacademic seems very irregular when such busts are called so-called
in well-respected books and journals. Eg two marble portraits of unknown Roman aristocrats in the Munich Glyptothek, the so-called Marius... and the also so-called Sulla...
[1] and Giuliani has associated, for example, the so-called Marius and Sulla portraits in Munich with the tomb
.
[2]
Ifly6 (
talk)
08:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
References
@ Rotideypoc41352: Thanks for reminding me (via the Watchlist) that updating was necessary in this article to reflect changes on the Marian reforms. I largely wrote both articles; I should have taken action to reconcile them earlier. Ifly6 ( talk) 05:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The willingness of the soldiers to kill fellow Romans changed after the Social War, not due to a reformist Marian vision: "if Sulla's army had been unwilling to march on Rome... then the outcome would obviously have been completely different, no matter how power-hungry Marius or Sulla were". [1]is a cuckoo edit. Flower 2010 connects the willingness of the soldiers to Marius' putative reform. Ifly6 ( talk) 22:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
References