Talk:Inaugural games of the Colosseum

older entries

Shouldn't {{cquotes}} be placed around the many quotes occuring in the text? Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 09:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, they shouldn't. Yomangani^talk 11:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Heart

Dear Wikipedia,

I love you very much.

Yours always, jengod 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one to restore the faith. Thanks to the authors. Calr 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The author is Yomangani, who unfortunately doesn't seem to be around much any more. :( –Outriggr § 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Speechless, sad and sickened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Martial

Really, this will not do. Martial was a poet, writing panegyric. As a Latin poet of the Silver age, he would have been praised for borrowing his details from Greek sources, whether or not they were true of the games he was supposedly describing.

But this article treats him as though he were a sports reporter. I don't have time or energy to fix this now; but this is another example of a mediocre article made FA. Characteristically, the FAC did not discuss this; they did find room for endashes, although less than the usual indefinite imbecility on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the {{accuracy}} tag, because your comment does not specify how exactly this article's treatment of Martial is factually inaccurate. I do not see from your comment what would need to be changed, and based on what source. Sandstein 07:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a fine article. Martial is not treated as a sports reporter - igoring the fact that modern sports reporters are just as prone to hyperbole and errors as other writers, this article recognises that Martial's account may not be completely accurate. There is a whole section devoted to the sources, which explicitly says "The poet Martial gives the most complete and only truly contemporary account in the form of his De Spectaculis ("On the Spectacles"), a somewhat sycophantic series of epigrams detailing the individual events of the games as an illustration of Titus' power and benevolence. Much of the work is concerned with praising Titus, and there have been difficulties with authenticating, dating and translating various portions...".

Notwithstanding his shortcomings as a source, at least Martial was contemporary: Suetonius and Cassius Dio - who may be expected to be more accurate - were writing decades after the event. As long as it is clear that the parts derived from Martial's account are labelled with a judicious "According to Martial..." or similar, I don't see the problem.-- !! ?? 11:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is as good as an article drawn directly from primary sources is likely to be; that does not mean it is beyond dispute. A classicist will read it with the necessary caution, but we are not writing for classicists; this does not even mention that De spectaculis is a collection of poems.

I agree that we should use Martial, even quote him. But the reader should be warned; at least as prominently as he is warned that Suetonius and Dio are second-century. (Nor do I mean to suggest that what I have said escpes the author; but it has escaped the article.)

This will require one of three options, two of which I cannot do at the moment:

• Stating the obvious without citation
• Finding an annotated edition of Martial
• Finding a book on the Roman games which makes the point.

Regards, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no article is beyond dispute. But readers should be warned? Like this: "The poet Martial ... De Spectaculis ... a somewhat sycophantic series of epigrams ... "? It is clear to me, as a reader, that the primary sources are not unimpeachable - here, we have a Roman poet writing "somewhat" sycophantic epigrams - but then no source is.

The article already refers to a range of secondary source, which, like this article, are inevitably derived from the primary ones, but perhaps Yomangani can comment further. I suspect that sources dealing specifically with the inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre (as opposed to Roman games, or the Colosseum, in general) are few and far between. -- !! ?? 09:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson, it's not clear to me if you actually read this article. Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre#Sources already says everything that you're complaining about. It devotes an entire section to the quality of the sourcing. Contrary to your false assertion, it explicitly mentions the nature of De spectaculis. I'd really encourage you to put more thought into your comments. In this case, your misinformed criticism caused User:Yomangani to retire. Yomangani was one of the hardest working article writers at Wikipedia, and it was very damaging for our project to lose him. I hope you consider the tone of your comments, and their factual accuracy, more carefully in the future. --JayHenry 18:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply put

This article is bad ass. Nice work to the people who created it and edited it to its complete Featured Article status!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Titus

Why was my picture change reverted? Clearly the bust in Image:Head Titus Glyptothek Munich 338.jpg gives a much better impression of what Titus looked like than the damaged statue of Image:Titus Bust.jpg. --Steerpike 18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Target

What is it about this article which makes it a magnate for vandalism? I must have reverted something on here four or five times in the last fortnight and a quick glance at the history suggests I am not alone! Does anybody know why? B1atv 22:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not unusual for articles on the front page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ludi Romani

There's a statement about these following the standard program of the "Roman games". It links to the Ludi Romani, a specific festival. Or are the ludi in general meant? (Which is what the lowercase "g" implies.) Cynwolfe (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FA sweeps

Unfortunately this article has many of the issues with other ancient subjects: over citation of ancient sources instead of modern scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 20:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Request Move

Would "Inaugural Games of the Colosseum" not be the WP:COMMONNAME? I think this article should be moved, but am surprised that it has not been already. Godtres (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)