![]() | Tacitus was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I cannot see why Plato's Republic is attributed to Tacitus (!) in 'See Also' section. Any reason not to delete it? ( Ophiochos ( talk) 19:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I cannot say emphatically enough that it's undue weight in this article to expand the section on a single passage referring to Christianity so that it's longer than the section on the entire Germania. Frankly, I don't think it belongs in this article at all, except in the "See also" section. Cynwolfe ( talk) 22:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted edits by User:Snow Rise back to Valentine's Day. While one or two look okay and benign, I begin to be concerned when I see words like "oratory" changed to "oration", when a preposition is left out of a sentence, when a CN template's correct date format isn't even used. Please try to understand my concerns. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Please be patient as I intend to cover all your edits one-by-one. You are obviously more concerned for this article than I had originally thought; however, until discussion is ended, this article should remain at status quo. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 06:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD is a quite ineffective essay, compared to the WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy:
On the content of the matter: major/minor works is a somewhat artificial subdivision for Tacitus. Renaming "minor works" to "monographs" could be considered. Histories and Annals should get the major focus though. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay wonderful – I have been working on this much of the night and there are two editors who decide to completely ignore the notice at the top of this section. Thank you for your consideration. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Re. the {{ cn}} sentence in the lede:
Yes, we need more sources on the nature of Tacitus' prose. Can anyone provide them and/or give a more appropriate summary of what these sources have to say on the matter in the lede? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Reverting per explanation on talk page;Paine,it's in fact you upon which the burden of discussion rests if you are going to revert a large number of edits for which policy rationale is going to vary;
...the wholesale reversion of a significant number of edits because you have vague qualms about some of those edits is not an appropriate or allowable methodology on Wikipedia.
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be good to keep in mind that there are basically three types of edits:
These are used below as rating parameters. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
"Other writings by him discuss..." → "Other of Tacitus' surviving writings include..."
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Copying CorinneSD's comment in order to continue a by topic discussion:
- 1) "Other writings by him discuss..." → "Other of Tacitus' surviving writings include..." was simply wrong, since topics rather than titles follow. I agree that "by him" was awkward. A better wording was needed and could have been worked out. that "oration" can also be used, but that's what the talk page is for.)
And Snow Rise's:
- 1) I've already said this multiple times, so hopefully this is the last any of us has to deal with this red herring. I have no objection to that wording -- I very much saw the logic of using that phrasing with regard to it being a list of topics rather than writings. As with you, my only qualm was with resolving the "by him" part and I agree that a combination of those features is what is called for. In fact, I employed just such a wording after your revert. It was amongst the edits that Paine culled out with his mass-revert. You and I are in complete agreement here.
Currently the second paragraph of the lede starts with: "Tacitus' other writings discuss ..." does anyone have a problem with that? My impression is that we're discussing here something that is moot by now for some time. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"Other writings by him discuss [[Public speaking|oratory]]..." → "Other of his writings discuss [[Public speaking|oration]]..."
I don't have any strong feelings on which of the two should be applied here; oratory works fine,...– another reason "oratory" does work fine is because it is used as a synonym in the lead of the Public speaking article.
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Copying CorinneSD's comment in order to continue a by topic discussion:
- 2) Regarding "oratory" vs. "oration", I felt it was wrong to use "oration" there, and I checked in the on-line Merriam-Webster dictionary. Only one definition for "oration" was given (a speech). (You are always welcome to provide evidence that "oration" can also be used, but that's what the talk page is for.)
And Snow Rise's:
- 2) Once again, I have no objection to this, which I've made repeatedly clear, but Paine repeatedly brings this up as if it's a matter I am being unreasonable upon. Mind you "oration" is an acceptable morphological conversion of that word, but I understand the preference for oratory and I never opposed it once it was put back. You and I are in agreement here.
Is everybody OK with "oratory" now? Seems we don't need to continue discussing this. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The alterings of subheaders and deletion of three of Tacitus' works (just because they're minor?).
Unless we have a source dividing Tacitus' works along this major/minor divide (and I'm unaware of any source that does so explicitly), it's WP:OR.
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Copying CorinneSD's comment in order to continue a by topic discussion:
- 4) Regarding the division of Tacitus' works into "major" and "minor" categories, I thought it was a logical division made by modern editors familiar with his works. I'm surprised you consider it "original research", but that kind of change is something I would have suggested in a comment on the talk page.
And Snow Rise's:
- 4) It's not a major issue in any sense (pun unintended), but yes this edit does represent a kind of original research. A claim need not be explicit in order to violate WP:V and WP:NPOV; it can also at times be implied by how the structure of an article implies weight. Labeling some of Tactitus' works as "major" and some as "minor" is an evaluative claim that needs to be either sourced or removed. We disagree here, but I think this is cut and dry.
Does anyone have a problem with the current subsection headers, to wit:
and
See also my comment above: "On the content of the matter: major/minor works is a somewhat artificial subdivision for Tacitus. Renaming "minor works" to "monographs" could be considered. Histories and Annals should get the major focus though."
Also here, if we can agree on the current situation, no need to continue discussing. If not: present your arguments (I mean: arguments to change the current situation, not arguments on a moot discussion about a prior situation). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"Tacitus is remembered first and foremost as the greatest Roman historian." → "Tacitus is remembered first and foremost as being amongst the greatest Roman historians."
Listing him as -the- greatest is OR and an evaluative, non-neutral, and non-encyclopedic manner to describe his role, as clearly individuals and scholars will vary in this regard. This is a extraordinary claim that would require much more immense sourcing
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Addendum:
Copying CorinneSD's comment in order to continue a by topic discussion:
- 5) Regarding "the greatest historian" or "one of the greatest", I'm not going to voice an opinion other than to say that I think Paine is right, that in WP articles, we go with what the sources say. Obviously, you think that one source is not enough to say that kind of thing.
And Snow Rise's:
- 5) Of course we go with the sources; this has been the crux of my arguments as well. This is a matter of WP:WEIGHT, and even a generous reading of that policy can't get us past the fact that the statement Paine wants to retain is WP:UNDUE. You've abstained on this matter, and the only fourth opinion we've had on this has supported my reading. That's a weak consensus, of course, so we can always RfC it, but I can't see many editors disagreeing that this extraordinary claim cannot be supported by the balance of the perspectives of the sources, which Paine is playing fast and loose with; he feels that "[Tacitus] is the major source for the history of the empire in the first century" /equals/ "Tacitus is known as the greatest Roman historian". Do you?
I agree with Snow here, this is a WP:BALASPS issue. The sources quoted above discuss a single paragraph in Tacitus' substantial oeuvre, and that paragraph is discussed as part of a discussion on another topic (not from a "scholarship of Tacitus" angle). So, if mentioned, such opinions should not outbalance the prevailing view that there is no "competition" among classic authors in this sense (unless some research on the matter can be presented). The quotes from the "Christianity in antiquity" sources remind me rather of album sleeves or concert programs for classical music: how many of these claim Mozart to be the greatest? How many Bach? Beethoven? etc... I have my personal preference (as I do have on classical historians), but that is hardly something one can put as an absolute in such article. So we need to stop skewing this in the direction of the "Christianity in antiquity" sources, and look for better/addititional sources that can give a more balanced view. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"...for its prose style; but it is as a political theorist that he..." → "...for its prose style, but it is in the area political theory that he..." (here is where you left out "of")
The dependent and independent clauses were not semantically consistent.
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Copying CorinneSD's comment in order to continue a by topic discussion:
- 6) Regarding this sentence:
- His work has been read for its moral instruction, dramatic narrative, and for its prose style; however, it is as a political theorist that he has been and remains most influential outside the field of history.
- Your quarrel is with the second half of this sentence. You say that, logically, one cannot use the noun ("a political theorist") in the first half of that clause and a field ("the field of history") in the second half. That doesn't bother me. I much prefer to use "a political theorist" rather than "in the area of political theory". I think what makes the clause muddy is "that he has been and remains most influential". First of all, there is no reason to use present perfect tense ("has been") for someone who lived 2,000 years ago. "Has been and remains" is wordy. Maybe there is a reason for it, but I don't see the reason for saying he remains influential. Do people today read his works and make decisions regarding politics and government based on what they read? I doubt it. Is he still influential in the field of political theory? I don't know. I think it enough to say that, outside of the field of history, he is known for being a political theorist.
- 3) In your re-wording of the sentence with "political theorist", you left out "of". These three edits (1, 2, and 3) showed a lack of care on your part with word usage and copy-editing. You could argue that they are minor, but, taken together, they draw the attention of experienced editors. That may have been what Paine called "red flags".
And Snow Rise's:
- 6) I think you pretty much have the right of this. There's no shortage of variations of the wording that might work here. My edit was intended to (and did) resolve the issue that the sentence was not semantically consistent.
- 3) I'm sorry I omitted the preposition, but seriously, mountains out of molehills here? Anyway, I don't know what is to be gained from discussing this, since this mistake (and errors on Wikipedia don't come any more minor than this) did not in any sense justify his actions under policy. In any event, I'm trying to move this situation forward, so let's let this issue die since clearly I do not object to a preposition being added where it is warranted? You and I are in complete agreement on this content issue, and the only possible reason to keep bringing this up is to provide justification for Paine's after-the-fact "red flag" theory, as if a preposition and a malformed date in a {{ cn}} tag really empowered him to revert all of my edits (they don't). We are all in agreement that the preposition should be in, so...moving on.
Currently reads: "His work has been read as well for its moral instruction, for its dramatic narrative, as for its prose style. Outside the field of history, Tacitus' influence is most prominent in the area of political theory." Does this need further discussion, or can we all agree with this version? I oppose both versions proposed by Snow, as well as the one proposed by Paine. But if we can agree on the current version I see no need to put more effort in explaining why. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Replaced parentheses with square brackets
The appropriate parenthetical punctuation for editorial notation.
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Copying CorinneSD's comment in order to continue a by topic discussion:
- 7) Regarding the replacement of curved with square brackets around the statement "Parentheses, linebreaks and comma added for clarity", I don't see anything wrong with curved brackets (parentheses). It's obviously not part of the English translation. I read the section of MOS to which you provided a link: WP:BRACKETS, and I could find nothing related to this type of statement.
And Snow Rise's:
- 7) Square brackets are the standard parenthetical punctuation when making editorial adjustments to quotes, as WP:BRACKETS references. But mind you, as is the case with a number of the specific edits reverted, I don't have particularly strong feelings on this; the standard parenthesis impart the information fine, and my adjustment was just a pro-forma approach. However, this is just one more edit that Paine reverted without a single word of discussion explanation.
Is this still a problem with the current re-arrangement of the quote? To wit:
Tiberii Gaique et Claudii ac Neronis res florentibus ipsis (ob metum) falsae, postquam occiderant (recentibus odiis) compositae sunt. |
Of Tiberius and Gaius and Claudius and Nero the events while they themselves still flourished (out of fear) misrepresented, after they had died (out of recent bitterness) recounted are.
|
I must say that I think neither the "literal" nor the "fluent" ("While Tiberius, Gaius [Caligula], Claudius and Nero were still living, the events of their times were misrepresented out of fear; and afterwards, they were recounted in bitterness.") translation very helpful here as an illustration for the point being made, so we'd need some rewrting anyhow if you ask me. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In my humble opinion five of the edits (now six) I reverted should follow my suggestions as to ratings and replacements if any. The CN should be restored and then tackled. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD is an essay which – once again – has proven unhelpful in such situations (I already warned about this above).
WP:EDITCONSENSUS is policy, so familiarize yourselves with it, and act accordingly. Unless you can't the behavioural discussion is moot.
The content topics have been copied to the appropriate subsections above. Please discuss content. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
09:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
|
I would have to agree with Snow Rise that it is I who should apologize for my above breaches of Wikipedia ettiquette, so I have done so on that editor's
talk page. I also agree that this is the place only to discuss improvements to the Tacitus article. And now to the "real" summary. Everything seems to have been put right in this article as pertains to these edits, so I wish only the best to all who have participated in this unfortunate event. Joys! –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
10:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
PS. This is just to thank
CorinneSD for your learned support and
Francis Schonken for your esteemed, cool-headed and objective perspectives and edits in this matter. (PS added by Paine)
Could everything that was said to be written by a person named tacitus be a forgery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.226.93 ( talk) 19:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, "Tacitus" was a pen-name of Poggio Bracciolini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.150 ( talk) 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe it is of the Emperor of the same name, not the historian. /info/en/?search=Tacitus_(emperor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CEC:2B20:D01D:C67F:4B45:76A4 ( talk) 03:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Rm dupe wikilinks and auto-edded. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Tacitus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tacitus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 00:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
A. R. Birley, "The Life and Death of Cornelius Tacitus," Historia, 49 (2000), pp. 230-47 discusses CIL VI, 1574, a fragment of an inscription that Géza Alföldy restored to provide more information on the historian's life. -- llywrch ( talk) 08:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Why was Tacitus called Tacitus? Did the words "tacit" and "taciturn" mean then what they do now? Asking for a Wordle friend, lol. 205.239.40.3 ( talk) 10:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The article contains the text "...that historian's mother was a daughter of Aulus Caecina Paetus, suffect consul of 37, and sister of Arria...". (emphasis mine)
I don't understand what "suffect consul of 37" means, and I suspect many readers would also fail to understand this phrase. "Suffect" itself is rather obscure, though at least I could Google that to get the definition "a Roman consul elected to complete the term of one who vacated office before the end of the year". But I especially don't understand the number 37 in this context.
Can anyone clarify? Riordanmr ( talk) 20:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Tacitus was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I cannot see why Plato's Republic is attributed to Tacitus (!) in 'See Also' section. Any reason not to delete it? ( Ophiochos ( talk) 19:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I cannot say emphatically enough that it's undue weight in this article to expand the section on a single passage referring to Christianity so that it's longer than the section on the entire Germania. Frankly, I don't think it belongs in this article at all, except in the "See also" section. Cynwolfe ( talk) 22:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted edits by User:Snow Rise back to Valentine's Day. While one or two look okay and benign, I begin to be concerned when I see words like "oratory" changed to "oration", when a preposition is left out of a sentence, when a CN template's correct date format isn't even used. Please try to understand my concerns. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Please be patient as I intend to cover all your edits one-by-one. You are obviously more concerned for this article than I had originally thought; however, until discussion is ended, this article should remain at status quo. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 06:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD is a quite ineffective essay, compared to the WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy:
On the content of the matter: major/minor works is a somewhat artificial subdivision for Tacitus. Renaming "minor works" to "monographs" could be considered. Histories and Annals should get the major focus though. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay wonderful – I have been working on this much of the night and there are two editors who decide to completely ignore the notice at the top of this section. Thank you for your consideration. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Re. the {{ cn}} sentence in the lede:
Yes, we need more sources on the nature of Tacitus' prose. Can anyone provide them and/or give a more appropriate summary of what these sources have to say on the matter in the lede? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Reverting per explanation on talk page;Paine,it's in fact you upon which the burden of discussion rests if you are going to revert a large number of edits for which policy rationale is going to vary;
...the wholesale reversion of a significant number of edits because you have vague qualms about some of those edits is not an appropriate or allowable methodology on Wikipedia.
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be good to keep in mind that there are basically three types of edits:
These are used below as rating parameters. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
"Other writings by him discuss..." → "Other of Tacitus' surviving writings include..."
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Copying CorinneSD's comment in order to continue a by topic discussion:
- 1) "Other writings by him discuss..." → "Other of Tacitus' surviving writings include..." was simply wrong, since topics rather than titles follow. I agree that "by him" was awkward. A better wording was needed and could have been worked out. that "oration" can also be used, but that's what the talk page is for.)
And Snow Rise's:
- 1) I've already said this multiple times, so hopefully this is the last any of us has to deal with this red herring. I have no objection to that wording -- I very much saw the logic of using that phrasing with regard to it being a list of topics rather than writings. As with you, my only qualm was with resolving the "by him" part and I agree that a combination of those features is what is called for. In fact, I employed just such a wording after your revert. It was amongst the edits that Paine culled out with his mass-revert. You and I are in complete agreement here.
Currently the second paragraph of the lede starts with: "Tacitus' other writings discuss ..." does anyone have a problem with that? My impression is that we're discussing here something that is moot by now for some time. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"Other writings by him discuss [[Public speaking|oratory]]..." → "Other of his writings discuss [[Public speaking|oration]]..."
I don't have any strong feelings on which of the two should be applied here; oratory works fine,...– another reason "oratory" does work fine is because it is used as a synonym in the lead of the Public speaking article.
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Copying CorinneSD's comment in order to continue a by topic discussion:
- 2) Regarding "oratory" vs. "oration", I felt it was wrong to use "oration" there, and I checked in the on-line Merriam-Webster dictionary. Only one definition for "oration" was given (a speech). (You are always welcome to provide evidence that "oration" can also be used, but that's what the talk page is for.)
And Snow Rise's:
- 2) Once again, I have no objection to this, which I've made repeatedly clear, but Paine repeatedly brings this up as if it's a matter I am being unreasonable upon. Mind you "oration" is an acceptable morphological conversion of that word, but I understand the preference for oratory and I never opposed it once it was put back. You and I are in agreement here.
Is everybody OK with "oratory" now? Seems we don't need to continue discussing this. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The alterings of subheaders and deletion of three of Tacitus' works (just because they're minor?).
Unless we have a source dividing Tacitus' works along this major/minor divide (and I'm unaware of any source that does so explicitly), it's WP:OR.
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Copying CorinneSD's comment in order to continue a by topic discussion:
- 4) Regarding the division of Tacitus' works into "major" and "minor" categories, I thought it was a logical division made by modern editors familiar with his works. I'm surprised you consider it "original research", but that kind of change is something I would have suggested in a comment on the talk page.
And Snow Rise's:
- 4) It's not a major issue in any sense (pun unintended), but yes this edit does represent a kind of original research. A claim need not be explicit in order to violate WP:V and WP:NPOV; it can also at times be implied by how the structure of an article implies weight. Labeling some of Tactitus' works as "major" and some as "minor" is an evaluative claim that needs to be either sourced or removed. We disagree here, but I think this is cut and dry.
Does anyone have a problem with the current subsection headers, to wit:
and
See also my comment above: "On the content of the matter: major/minor works is a somewhat artificial subdivision for Tacitus. Renaming "minor works" to "monographs" could be considered. Histories and Annals should get the major focus though."
Also here, if we can agree on the current situation, no need to continue discussing. If not: present your arguments (I mean: arguments to change the current situation, not arguments on a moot discussion about a prior situation). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"Tacitus is remembered first and foremost as the greatest Roman historian." → "Tacitus is remembered first and foremost as being amongst the greatest Roman historians."
Listing him as -the- greatest is OR and an evaluative, non-neutral, and non-encyclopedic manner to describe his role, as clearly individuals and scholars will vary in this regard. This is a extraordinary claim that would require much more immense sourcing
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Addendum:
Copying CorinneSD's comment in order to continue a by topic discussion:
- 5) Regarding "the greatest historian" or "one of the greatest", I'm not going to voice an opinion other than to say that I think Paine is right, that in WP articles, we go with what the sources say. Obviously, you think that one source is not enough to say that kind of thing.
And Snow Rise's:
- 5) Of course we go with the sources; this has been the crux of my arguments as well. This is a matter of WP:WEIGHT, and even a generous reading of that policy can't get us past the fact that the statement Paine wants to retain is WP:UNDUE. You've abstained on this matter, and the only fourth opinion we've had on this has supported my reading. That's a weak consensus, of course, so we can always RfC it, but I can't see many editors disagreeing that this extraordinary claim cannot be supported by the balance of the perspectives of the sources, which Paine is playing fast and loose with; he feels that "[Tacitus] is the major source for the history of the empire in the first century" /equals/ "Tacitus is known as the greatest Roman historian". Do you?
I agree with Snow here, this is a WP:BALASPS issue. The sources quoted above discuss a single paragraph in Tacitus' substantial oeuvre, and that paragraph is discussed as part of a discussion on another topic (not from a "scholarship of Tacitus" angle). So, if mentioned, such opinions should not outbalance the prevailing view that there is no "competition" among classic authors in this sense (unless some research on the matter can be presented). The quotes from the "Christianity in antiquity" sources remind me rather of album sleeves or concert programs for classical music: how many of these claim Mozart to be the greatest? How many Bach? Beethoven? etc... I have my personal preference (as I do have on classical historians), but that is hardly something one can put as an absolute in such article. So we need to stop skewing this in the direction of the "Christianity in antiquity" sources, and look for better/addititional sources that can give a more balanced view. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"...for its prose style; but it is as a political theorist that he..." → "...for its prose style, but it is in the area political theory that he..." (here is where you left out "of")
The dependent and independent clauses were not semantically consistent.
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Copying CorinneSD's comment in order to continue a by topic discussion:
- 6) Regarding this sentence:
- His work has been read for its moral instruction, dramatic narrative, and for its prose style; however, it is as a political theorist that he has been and remains most influential outside the field of history.
- Your quarrel is with the second half of this sentence. You say that, logically, one cannot use the noun ("a political theorist") in the first half of that clause and a field ("the field of history") in the second half. That doesn't bother me. I much prefer to use "a political theorist" rather than "in the area of political theory". I think what makes the clause muddy is "that he has been and remains most influential". First of all, there is no reason to use present perfect tense ("has been") for someone who lived 2,000 years ago. "Has been and remains" is wordy. Maybe there is a reason for it, but I don't see the reason for saying he remains influential. Do people today read his works and make decisions regarding politics and government based on what they read? I doubt it. Is he still influential in the field of political theory? I don't know. I think it enough to say that, outside of the field of history, he is known for being a political theorist.
- 3) In your re-wording of the sentence with "political theorist", you left out "of". These three edits (1, 2, and 3) showed a lack of care on your part with word usage and copy-editing. You could argue that they are minor, but, taken together, they draw the attention of experienced editors. That may have been what Paine called "red flags".
And Snow Rise's:
- 6) I think you pretty much have the right of this. There's no shortage of variations of the wording that might work here. My edit was intended to (and did) resolve the issue that the sentence was not semantically consistent.
- 3) I'm sorry I omitted the preposition, but seriously, mountains out of molehills here? Anyway, I don't know what is to be gained from discussing this, since this mistake (and errors on Wikipedia don't come any more minor than this) did not in any sense justify his actions under policy. In any event, I'm trying to move this situation forward, so let's let this issue die since clearly I do not object to a preposition being added where it is warranted? You and I are in complete agreement on this content issue, and the only possible reason to keep bringing this up is to provide justification for Paine's after-the-fact "red flag" theory, as if a preposition and a malformed date in a {{ cn}} tag really empowered him to revert all of my edits (they don't). We are all in agreement that the preposition should be in, so...moving on.
Currently reads: "His work has been read as well for its moral instruction, for its dramatic narrative, as for its prose style. Outside the field of history, Tacitus' influence is most prominent in the area of political theory." Does this need further discussion, or can we all agree with this version? I oppose both versions proposed by Snow, as well as the one proposed by Paine. But if we can agree on the current version I see no need to put more effort in explaining why. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Replaced parentheses with square brackets
The appropriate parenthetical punctuation for editorial notation.
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Copying CorinneSD's comment in order to continue a by topic discussion:
- 7) Regarding the replacement of curved with square brackets around the statement "Parentheses, linebreaks and comma added for clarity", I don't see anything wrong with curved brackets (parentheses). It's obviously not part of the English translation. I read the section of MOS to which you provided a link: WP:BRACKETS, and I could find nothing related to this type of statement.
And Snow Rise's:
- 7) Square brackets are the standard parenthetical punctuation when making editorial adjustments to quotes, as WP:BRACKETS references. But mind you, as is the case with a number of the specific edits reverted, I don't have particularly strong feelings on this; the standard parenthesis impart the information fine, and my adjustment was just a pro-forma approach. However, this is just one more edit that Paine reverted without a single word of discussion explanation.
Is this still a problem with the current re-arrangement of the quote? To wit:
Tiberii Gaique et Claudii ac Neronis res florentibus ipsis (ob metum) falsae, postquam occiderant (recentibus odiis) compositae sunt. |
Of Tiberius and Gaius and Claudius and Nero the events while they themselves still flourished (out of fear) misrepresented, after they had died (out of recent bitterness) recounted are.
|
I must say that I think neither the "literal" nor the "fluent" ("While Tiberius, Gaius [Caligula], Claudius and Nero were still living, the events of their times were misrepresented out of fear; and afterwards, they were recounted in bitterness.") translation very helpful here as an illustration for the point being made, so we'd need some rewrting anyhow if you ask me. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In my humble opinion five of the edits (now six) I reverted should follow my suggestions as to ratings and replacements if any. The CN should be restored and then tackled. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD is an essay which – once again – has proven unhelpful in such situations (I already warned about this above).
WP:EDITCONSENSUS is policy, so familiarize yourselves with it, and act accordingly. Unless you can't the behavioural discussion is moot.
The content topics have been copied to the appropriate subsections above. Please discuss content. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
09:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
|
I would have to agree with Snow Rise that it is I who should apologize for my above breaches of Wikipedia ettiquette, so I have done so on that editor's
talk page. I also agree that this is the place only to discuss improvements to the Tacitus article. And now to the "real" summary. Everything seems to have been put right in this article as pertains to these edits, so I wish only the best to all who have participated in this unfortunate event. Joys! –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
10:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
PS. This is just to thank
CorinneSD for your learned support and
Francis Schonken for your esteemed, cool-headed and objective perspectives and edits in this matter. (PS added by Paine)
Could everything that was said to be written by a person named tacitus be a forgery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.226.93 ( talk) 19:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, "Tacitus" was a pen-name of Poggio Bracciolini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.150 ( talk) 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe it is of the Emperor of the same name, not the historian. /info/en/?search=Tacitus_(emperor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CEC:2B20:D01D:C67F:4B45:76A4 ( talk) 03:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Rm dupe wikilinks and auto-edded. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Tacitus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tacitus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 00:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
A. R. Birley, "The Life and Death of Cornelius Tacitus," Historia, 49 (2000), pp. 230-47 discusses CIL VI, 1574, a fragment of an inscription that Géza Alföldy restored to provide more information on the historian's life. -- llywrch ( talk) 08:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Why was Tacitus called Tacitus? Did the words "tacit" and "taciturn" mean then what they do now? Asking for a Wordle friend, lol. 205.239.40.3 ( talk) 10:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The article contains the text "...that historian's mother was a daughter of Aulus Caecina Paetus, suffect consul of 37, and sister of Arria...". (emphasis mine)
I don't understand what "suffect consul of 37" means, and I suspect many readers would also fail to understand this phrase. "Suffect" itself is rather obscure, though at least I could Google that to get the definition "a Roman consul elected to complete the term of one who vacated office before the end of the year". But I especially don't understand the number 37 in this context.
Can anyone clarify? Riordanmr ( talk) 20:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)