|Hadrian was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.|
|Hadrian has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 HADRIAN DIDN'T ACTUALLY BUILD THE WALL DID HE???
- 2 homosexuality
- 3 "made love to a horse"??
- 4 "friend" of Antinous?
- 5 His estate
- 6 Persecuter
- 7 Barbarians.
- 8 Where was he born?
- 9 according to Elizabeth Speller...assessment of Hadrian beyond "good" and "bad"
- 10 Antinous
- 11 Antinous
- 12 Antinous
- 13 born place
- 14 Stoic-Epicurean
- 15 Recent Hadrian / Antinous sex picture
- 16 GA nomination
- 17 Second Roman-Jewish War
- 18 Britannia section
- 19 First bearded emperor
- 20 Vallum Hadriani
- 21 Edward Gibbon: "happiest era of human history"
- 22 Personal Life
- 23 Family tree
- 24 There is no evidence Hadrian stated in his autobiography that he was born in Rome.
- 25 Birthplace, redux
- 26 Antinous
- 27 Antinous, redux
- 28 Citation needed for Italica?
- 29 Sexuality
- 30 Era style
- 31 Name and title
HADRIAN DIDN'T ACTUALLY BUILD THE WALL DID HE???
In the hadrians wall article it suggests that the wall was planned and the construction began before Hadrian ruled in that area as - iT is contradicting to say Hadrian built the wall - If you have proof that Hadrian actually built the wall please cite your quotation or display evidence. A suggestion would be to rephrase this statement... perhaps that "the wall was built during the ruling of Hadrian?"
This is nonsense: "the construction began before Hadrian ruled in that area" What does this mean? The wall was built during his reign, under his orders. He built it. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
shouldn't there be a brief mentioning of hadrian's homosexuality, like his relationship with antinous?
- Yes, of course, including the death of Antinous - probably sacrificial - in the Nile, and more generally, how Hadrian was so far up the Greeks he he invented a new religion for him, building temples to Antinous across the empire. This page on Hadrian is pathetic, it misses out just about everything of importance, and misrepresents him seriously. Hadrian instigated the Third Jewish-Roman war and holocaust against the Jews: he is comparable to Adolf Hitler - mad, bad and dangerous to know. Now, who here is promoting him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extramural (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually if we are going to give Hadrian a label for his sexual orientation it would be bisexual, not gay or homosexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
"made love to a horse"??
This section perhaps needs some clarification
- Another loser with no life thinking vandalism is clever. They never seem to realize that we can revert vandalism faster than they can write it, so it's pointless to try. Stan 16:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
the building work on hadrians wall started in 0122, not 0112, i found out in a reliable history book.
- There is some useful material in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that might be incorporated into the article to fill that gap. You can find it here. /Nicke L 21:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
That diagonal earlobe creases – a characteristic associated with coronary heart disease is practically medical urban legend. I'm not sure it fits here in wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- This understanding is now outdated and wrong. ("Having one small abnormality in facial features, such as an earlobe crease, is not uncommon, and is usually not associated with a serious medical condition." Medline Plus) Extramural —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC).
"friend" of Antinous?
It seems well known that these men were lovers. The extreme display of grief by Hadrian following the death of Antinous speaks of a strong emotional connection. Taking a young man as a lover is consistent with the Hellene culture Hadrian was a fan of. Why is it not explicitly stated that these men were lovers when there is so much evidence for this? Also Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations disapproves of Hadrians pedophilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computatioi (talk • contribs) 10:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- "When there is so much evidence for this"? you're drawing such conclusions based on him being upset due to his death? That's hardly 'evidence' to support anything let alone this. I was pretty distraught when my hamster died when i was little. I buried him and made a little hamster gravestone, does that make us lovers? please. you're pushing an agenda. keep it to yourself or source it with irrefutable evidence.22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- The comparison between your reaction to the death of your hamster and Hadrian's reaction to Antinous's is so ridiculous it doesn’t really deserve comment, but nevertheless I will. The whole Roman world was put in a state of mourning and vast numbers of statues were erected at public expense. Antinous was a nobody, a greek boy from Bithnya and the level of grief displayed by Hadrian was immoderate and out of character for a man of such undoubted intellect as he. There was clearly something more than a conventional friendship going on. You are right of course that irrefutable proof is lacking but it is also true to say that there is no proof the relationship wasn't homosexual either. The evidence would seem to point towards bi/homosexuality however, especially given the nature of Roman morality. Roman views on bi/homosexuality were completely at odds with those of later times. It was a pre-christian world. What was morally unacceptable to the Romans, as all those who know the slightest bit about Roman history know, was for a man to be the submissive partner in a relationship (i.e. the 'receiver'). The gender of a man's sexual partners was irrelevant as long he was sexually dominant. Hence a lack of comment in the ancient sources to something which was not socially unacceptable is not unsurprising (how many mistresses of kings and Emperors are unrecorded in history). What was special, however, was Hadrian's reaction to Antinous' death. Finally, to suggest that an agenda is being pushed is a perversion of scholarship. What possible agenda could be pursued by suggesting Hadrian was homosexual? The allegation suggests that you have an agenda in ensuring that Hadrian not be seen as homosexual or bisexual. It is probable that Hadrian was at least bisexual, although debate on his relationship with Antinous is welcome and necessary to scholarship. It should have its own section in the article as does Alexander the Great's relationship with his alleged lover Hephaestion (also a man!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hadrian's grief was modeled that of Achilles when Patroclus died, as well as on the Alexander/Hephaestion relationship. That is to say, there were specific things you were supposed to do in Greek culture when your catamite died, so this was Hadrian's opportunity to show how Greek-friendly he was. Hadrian obviously knew how well this sort of drama played in the Greek-speaking world, so well, in fact, that there is a good chance Hadrian offed Antinous to have it play out. Kauffner (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is also the possibility that he might have considered adopting Antinous, which was a common thing for emperors to do. Hadrian himself was an adoptive son of Trajan and he did after all have two other adoptive sons. Considering that Hadrian was a staunch Philhellene this would make sense. Maybe this possibility could be mentioned if this view is not considered to be original research... OTOH, Historia Augusta which seems to be the main source for the claim of something else between them has some credibility issues, i.e. it's hard to know what's gossip and what's not... Abvgd (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hadrian would not have adopted Antinous as his son. It would have been politically unthinkable, however Philhellenic he was. While adoption was indeed a common act by Emperors (Hadrian actually adopted two sons: Lucius Ceionius Commodus and Antoninus Pius), it was always done to signify an heir to the position of princips (or the throne if you prefer to speak plainly). Antinous was a nobody. He never held any office, never served in the legion and there is no evidence that he did anything but act as a companion to Hadrian. Both of the men adopted by Hadrian, the first predeceased Hadrian thus necessitating the adoption of Antoninus Pius, held consular rank. Antinous' only qualification was his not inconsiderable beauty. For Hadrian to have adopted him as his son would have looked to the Roman establishment as though his reason had been overtaken by lust, something Romans would have seen as an intolerable weakness in a princeps. Even had the relationship been entirely plutonic, which it almost certainly was not, it was still popular gossip that they were lovers. Worse than that he would not only have been seen as a lust blinded fool but incestuous father! The most plausible explanation for Hadrian and Antinous' bond was that it was founded upon on the Greek practice of pederasty which then continued into Antinous' adult life and developed into a full homosexual relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
At Hadrian's villa in Tivoli(?)
So far, 15 steps, each 27 feet wide, have been identified and archaeologists did not rule out uncovering more. 
Archaeologists who have been digging for more than a year at the villa of Roman Emperor Hadrian in Tivoli have unearthed a monumental staircase, a statue of an athlete and what appears to be a headless sphinx.
Is it not highly relevant that Hadrian was a brutal killer of Christians?--Railsmart
I've taken the phrase 'barbarians for the time being' out because it makes no sense. There is no barbarian 'lifestyle'. The Caledonians chose not to be Roman and the Romans defined them as barbarians. That's all there is to be said. Rcpaterson 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Where was he born?
- Italica was the birthplace of the Roman Emperors Trajan and Hadrian
- Hadrian was born in Rome to a well-established family which had originated in Picenum in Italy and had subsequently settled in Italica, Hispania Baetica (originally Hispania Ulterior).
Italica was Hadrian's patria, ie his family's home town, and some late Roman historians assumed that to be his birthplace, but he himself was born in Rome as is explicitly stated in the Historia Augusta, here almost universally considerd to be reproducing a good late 2nd or early 3rd century source.Cenedi
Birley's biography on Hadrian states that he was born in Flavian Rome. See also the Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd Edition, Vol XI: The Imperial Peace, p. 132.Neoaeolian
As of today we have his birthplace changed back to Spain, specifically Seville. On what grounds? Cenedi 10:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Will people please read the first paragraph of Anthony R. Birley's magisterial new biography of Hadrian, which explains that he had to have been born in Rome? His father was a senator, and senators customarily resided in Rome unless appointed as governors elsewhere. Moreover, his father was probably a praetor at the time of Hadrian's birth, another reason why the family would have to have been in Rome. http://www.amazon.com/Hadrian-Restless-Emperor-Imperial-Biographies/dp/0415228123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentor2 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
according to Elizabeth Speller...assessment of Hadrian beyond "good" and "bad"
Elizabeth Speller, while an accomplished novelist, was certainly not the first to remark on the complex character of Hadrian that comes down to us from ancient works. The difficulty of categorizing Hadrian as a "good" or "bad" emperor, even by ancient biographical sources that often had a penchant for moralizing caricature, was remarked upon as far back as Gibbon. See Gibbon's Decline and Fall (Methuen ed. 1909, p. 83) "Hadrian was, by turns, an excellent prince, a ridiculous sophist, and a jealous tyrant." While I have nothing against Mrs. Speller, the appearance should not be given that that observation was her original creation. Having the article read "according to Elizabeth Speller.." does give the impression of originality. Seeing that Mrs. Speller's authority on the subject rests on her novel "Following Hadrain" which is itself somewhat of a derivative work (of Marguerite Yourcenar's "Memoirs of Hadrian", an altogether superior work), I am hesitant to award to Mrs. Speller the credit for the observation.
Unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I will change the article to something more reasonable towards all of the Hadrian scholarship that has come before Mrs. Speller's time.
- There are a number of other references to Speller. Surely an encyclopedia can cite better sources than a novel, i.e. a fictional account? --Nantonos 09:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is this person listed as a source along with page numbers but no reference to what those page numbers refer to. Someone's name and a page number with no work to tie the number to, hardly qualifies as a source. (though looking at her biography, it seems that she is not qualified to be a source anyway.) 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Under "Cultural Pursuits..." it says "Hadrian drew the whole Empire into his mourning, making Antinous the last new god of antiquity". I didn't change it in case I misunderstood something but what is written can't be what is meant. Many, many more men are deified in 'antiquity' including Emperor Hadrian himself as noted later in this very article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
Hi there. Under "Cultural Pursuits..." it says "Hadrian drew the whole Empire into his mourning, making Antinous the last new god of antiquity". I didn't change it in case I misunderstood something but what is written can't be what is meant. Many, many more men are deified in 'antiquity' including Emperor Hadrian himself as noted later in this very article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I don't think we should assume that they were lovers, there is no concrete proof, and if they were it would have been known and in the open. Pederasty was quite well-known at the time and in practice, there was no need for Hadrian to hide it. A quick read through the pederasty section of Wiki will show anyone that their relation did not seem like an amorous one cause it does not fall within the usual rules. But the fact that he deified him is sort of suspicious as well. Antinous was considerd to be the most attractive male to have ever lived so who knows... MarcusAntoninus 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Modern scholarship has stopped pretending that they were not lovers. The scandal was not that they were, but that Hadrian wished to continue the relationship once Antinous reached the age of maturity (Birley 2-3, 158 184-185, 241) --Nantonos 09:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
He was born in Italica in a place near the adriatic see , then very young he moved in spain with trajan when he was governor of spain...
What is the source for this statement? Italica is nowhere near the Adriatic. It also isn't identical with Seville, which the article currently has as his birthplace (quite erroneously, I would think). I repeat from 'Where was he born?' above - Italica was his family's home town, not necessarily his own birthplace. The best sources suggest he was born at Rome.Cenedi 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I've rejigged the heading paragraph and the start of 'Early Life' to try and lay this matter to rest - ie that Hadrian was born in Rome, where his father, as a senator, resided most of the time - but I have no faith this will be the end of the matter!Cenedi 13:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nowadays, Italica is part of the province of Seville. In the Roman period Italica and Hispalis (Seville) were different cities.
What is this supposed to mean? Stoicism and Epicureanism were often opposing each other (on philosophy of nature, on ethics derived from it, etc.) Daizus 13:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- i had the exact same question. i guess it means a god-fearing atheist. second tidbit, what is the difference between a "Jewish persecution" and an "anti-Jewish persecution"? The Jackal God 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that this qualification can hardly be correct. Probably meant is a diluted Epicureanism, i.e. someone who loves life and the arts, etc. but who is not a follower of Epicurus, who himself led a sober life, and who adhered to atomism as explanation of the universe. But even calling him a Stoic seems like overdoing it: although he may have admired Epictetus, this not ncecessarily entails any adherence to Stoic philosophical views: possibly to some precepts for daily life. Probably here also a diluted Stoicism is meant, in the sense that Hadrian did not refrain from (sometimes) living the stern and sober life of a soldier when he was on campaign. (Marguerite Yourcenar makes him explicitly criticize the Stoics). Donjanssen (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Recent Hadrian / Antinous sex picture
I think this picture should be removed. This article is not a sex-specific article in the same way that Erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum is. I don't think this erotic picture belongs in this article any more than a picture of Henry VIII in bed with Anne Boleyn or George Washington doing it with Martha belongs on theirs. Mlouns 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm aware that Wikipedia is not censored, but per Wikipedia:Profanity, potentially offensive images should be used "if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate". I don't think this painting is important enough to the topic of Hadrian to justify its inclusion. I can see better grounds for including it on the Antinous article, since artistic portrayals are a much larger part of what makes him important than is the case for Hadrian, but I would still incline to omit it if it isn't considered notable by art historians. EALacey 19:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I intend to remove the picture in the next few days. If someone objects, please state why this particular painting is especially important to include in the article. Mlouns 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the first requirement (It is well written) the article looks complained.
- There are some problems with the 2nd requirement (It is well referenced), some sections and paragraphs are completely unreferenced:
- "Securing power" section, 2nd paragraph;
- "Hadrian and the military" section, 1st paragraph;
- "Cultural pursuits and patronage" - almost completely unreferenced;
- In "Hadrian's travels" section there is only one ref in 3 big paragraphs;
- Prior to Hadrian's arrival on Great Britain there had been a major rebellion in Britannia, spanning roughly two years (119–121)...In many ways it represents Hadrian's will to improve and develop within the Empire, rather than waging wars and conquering. - an important paragraph without a ref;
- this one now fixed --Nantonos 09:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Britannia" section - 1st paragraph;
- Hadrian spent the final years of his life at Rome. In 134, he took an Imperial salutation for the end of the Jewish War (which was not actually concluded until the following year). In 136, he dedicated a new Temple of 'Venus and Rome' on the former site of Nero's Golden House. - really needs a ref;
- "Death" section - completely unreferenced;
- Regarding the third, fourth, fifth and sixth requirements (It is broad in its coverage / It is neutral / It is stable / Any images it contains are appropriate), the article looks compliant.
I'll check back in seven day and see if the article deserves the GA promotion. Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 12:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Second Roman-Jewish War
I added a section on the Second Roman-Jewish war and the role of Hadrian in it by combining the material already present with material from the Wikipedia site on the Roman-Jewish war, lightly edited to make it consistent. RFB —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This section is really inaccurate: the purpose of Hadrian's wall was not, as is popularly believed, to safeguard the empire against attacks from Caledonia. This can be readily seen by the existence of trading posts that allowed unhindered access through the wall, along with the settlements that sprang up around them (see the first episode of Simon Schama's A History of Britain). The true purpose of the wall was to define the Roman Empire's geographical limits, which had never been previously done. It was basically Hadrian's way of saying, "this is as far as we'll go", and marked a transition from centuries of progressive conquest to the beginning of the empire's decline.
Can someone with more specific knowledge on this update the article? I don't have the sources or experience to really do it justice. -- Hux 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree - it's most unsatisfactory. The section gives the impression that there had been no military activity in Caledonia prior to Hadrian's visit to Britannia, and that he abandoned the idea of "conquest" north of the Solway/Tyne isthmus in favour of building an impregnable barrier. Hadrian was reversing the misguided and unsustainable expansionist policies of previous emperors, retrenching within clearly defined borders, to best use the available military manpower.
Not only that, the section ties itself in knots. Firstly the wall was to be made of stone as there was "a lack of suitable wood in the area" (the largest forests in England are just north of the Wall, and it was even more heavily wooded in Hadrian's time), and then a substantial part was to be built of turf, as there was a lack of building stone! This ignores the fact that the turf wall and mile-castles had substantial wooden palisades on top, and that it was rebuilt in stone later!
It then goes on to suggest a lack of stone resulted in the narrowing of the wall in the eastern sector! Surprising then, that large 19th and 20th century quarries were dug, destroying whole sections of the Wall, and that the Roman architects were so dim as to plan a construction they couldn't complete with the materials available. Most of this section is conjecture, and poor conjecture at that. Rambler24 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
First bearded emperor
We wasn't. That honour goes to Nero (54-68), many of whose images - on coins and in statuary - show him sporting a beard (of the 'chinstrap' variety). He too was something of a philhellene. I have edited accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The Latin name of the wall is unknown (see the discussion on the Hadrian's Wall page). In any case, it's unlikely to have borne the builder's cognomen (Hadrianus), but his nomen gentilicium (Aelius), as this was the usual Roman naming practice for building projects (although there are a few exceptions).126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Edward Gibbon: "happiest era of human history"
- I am sorry, but I believe that it is not so. The Gibbon's famous quotation, in his chapter I, does not refer to Hadrian's reign concretly, but to the almost totality of the 2nd. century AD, exempting Commodus, be read here. I think you can anyway adapt it, or even to introduce the quote. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is the info about his personal life just mixed in with his career instead of having it's own section, like with most articles on famous people? I could not find his marriage, mention of why he had no children (one assumes, since the family tree indicates only an adopted "son" to secure the succession) and Antinous was written about under the heading "Cultural pursuits and patronage." For someone who is researching bisexual people in history, this article does not make that info very accessible, unlike many other articles. Sheela —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC) ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence Hadrian stated in his autobiography that he was born in Rome.
- This is a conjecture of the Wikipedia article, based on a faulty reading of the 'Augustan History' biography of Hadrian, purportedly written by one Aelius Spartianus.
- I refer to the actual text of the biography.
- In the opening paragraph of the the biography, only one reference is made to claims Hadrian made himself in his autobiography:
- "The original home of the family of the Emperor Hadrian was Picenum, the later, Spain; for Hadrian himself relates in his autobiography that his forefathers came from Hadria, but settled at Italica in the time of the Scipios."
- However, the mention of Hadrian's birth in Rome is an inference of the Augustan History biographer:
- "Hadrian was born in Rome on the ninth day before the Kalends of February in the seventh consulship of Vespasian and the fifth of Titus."
- Nevertheless, the footnote referring to this claim in the English translation (Loeb Classical Library) says:
- "This is, of course, a fiction, and the biography contradicts itself, for Italica is clearly the patria referred to in c. ii.1 and 2, and c. xix.1."
- As for the reference to Hadrian's own autobiography, the footnote says:
- "For the Autobiography of Hadrian, now lost, cf. c. xvi. It seems to have been written toward the close of his life, and, to judge from scanty citations from it, its purpose was to contradict current statements about himself which he considered derogatory to his reputation and to present him in a favourable light to posterity."
- Jacob Davidson
Just above is an argument saying he wasn't born in Rome. Earlier today -- further up, another editor points to a book which says he must have been born in Rome. The article needs to reflect the dispute, it can't state where he was born, only that there is uncertainty, the locations suggested, and, attributed, the arguments for and against them, without trying to come to a conclusion. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the wall, Hadrian's relationship with Antinous is what he is best known for, both today and in ancient times. The cult of Antinous was one of the most popular ancient cults, with his bust a very common archeological find. Googling Hadrian homosexual yields a staggering number hits, presumably because of this relationship. The issue certainly deserves a mention in the lede.
"Hispano" is the pre-Roman population in Spain. But here we don't mean that Hadrian was mixed race, but only that he came from Spain. "Spain" is just the anglicized form of Hispania, even if the borders are not quite the same. (After all, what country's borders have stayed the same over a 2,000 year period?) Kauffner (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Many books about Hadrian will mention the word homosexual, so a large number of hits isn't surprising, but 20,000 web hits, which is about what I saw when I clicked on your link, isn't staggering or proof of anything. If I do a search on Google books with the words Hadrian and emperor, I get about 449,000 (which may merit the word staggering). Replacing 'emperor' with 'homosexual' gives me about 4,710 results. That search on GScholar provides about 2,130 results, Hadrian and emperor about 23,000. The point being that far more books, journal articles, etc do not mention his homosexuality than do mention it. So, if your argument is that is what he is best known for, then I'd challenge your statement. I have found the statement "Hadrian is perhaps best known for his building legacy, especially in Athens, " which is certainly something he is well known for. So no, it doesn't belong in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing in the lede currently about Hadrian's building projects in Athens. In fact, the lede is full of trivia, especially the third paragraph, like you said. We could take out that paragraph, add the Athens projects and the Bar Kochba revolt, as well as Antinous, and easily stay under 500 words. A published summary of Hadrian's life typically mentions Antinous -- and that's what the lede should do. See here, here, here and even an article entitled "Hadrian the gay emperor" for examples. There is also an enormous amount of writing on the Web about homosexuality that uses Hadrian as an object lesson, as least if the results of this Google search are any indication: homosexuality Hadrian Kauffner (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
As the previous section makes clear, Hadrian's relationship with Antinous attracted an enormous amount of attention, both in ancient and modern times. I hardly think that adding a few sentences to explain its context and significance constitutes WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK. Yourcenar's book is easily the best-known work on Hadrian and it has quite a reputation, as you can see from this review. There is no issue of using it as a source, but merely informing the reader that Yourcenar's view of Hadrian has been influential. Kauffner (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Citation needed for Italica?
It seems that a "citation needed template" affects the fact of Italica location close to Sevilla (Spain). I think it is a so obvious and well-known fact as to render any citation unnecessary.--Auró (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted this entire section - it anachronistically describes Hadrian as making it clear he was 'gay', a category that didn't exist at the time, and its only source is a newspaper article in the Independent. There ought to be a section on Hadrian's sexuality, but one with proper scholarly refs and an understanding of the different sexualities of the ancient world. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right. All that's needed is the Antinous section, which has been a long battle against the neo-Victorians who somehow think it's improper to suggest that H&A got it on. A "Sexuality" section can only contain half-baked psychologizing based on exiguous evidence: OR. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This article uses "BCE"/"CE" already. It would be preferred that you keep it this way, out of respect for the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty since they had no affiliation, or liking to Christianity. If you object, please provide a valid reason as to why. Lupus Bellator (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, the article traditionally used the BC/AD convention until you changed it today. Your change was challenged and reverted per WP:ERA. The article should retain the established convention.Cúchullain t/c 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose changing era style, or removing era designation per Plotinus example at WP:ERA. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Name and title
I have deleted a weird sentence, but the page was updated before I could explain what I had done:
"In Latin, the full imperial title of Hadrian was also rendered as Tito Ael[io] Hadriano, just as it appears in ancient epigraphic records."
The "full imperial title" is not given of any emperor, only part of a name. Moreover, this is not Hadrian (whose praenomen was Publius) but Antoninus Pius whose praenomen was Titus and whose full imperial name was (CIL III 116 = 6639): [Imp(eratori) Caes(ari)] Tito Ael(io) Hadriano Antonino Aug(usto) Pio p(atri) p(atriae) pontiflici) augur(i) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)
As this is a dedicatio to the emperor the names and titles are in the dative. They should be rendered in the nominative in an English translation of the Latin text!!!