216:
analyzed) periods of Roman history. There are an abundance of good secondary sources that I'm amazed weren't used: for instance, there are three solid books in
English on the Year of Four Emperors alone, which was an important event Titus played a role in. Ronald Syme has written an authoritative study of the works of Tacitus, & F. Millar has written another valuable study on Cassius Dio -- neither of which were cited for this article. Okay, the relevant articles on Titus' father Vespasian & his brother Domitian don't use these works either (although they'd be better articles if they did), but they do rely more on secondary sources than this one does. My guess about how this achieved GA status is based on the date it occurred -- July 2007. Standards were still evolving, & I doubt anyone would expect a GA class article to use secondary sources more extensively 9 years ago. I'd try to fix some of these issues, were it not that my available time is tied up with trying to fix problems in another set of articles about ancient Rome. --
271:
modern secondary sources in those languages.) And in the case of Greco-Roman history, most consuls -- who are notable individuals due to being chief executives of the Roman state -- aren't the subject of studies in the secondary literature, so anyone writing about them will be forced to rely on Livy, Diodorus
Siculus, & other primary sources exclusively to write articles about them. So either one simply repeats with minimal interpretation what the primary sources say about the subject, or leave the subject little more than a stub article -- which is what I have had to do in those cases. I'm not interested in fighting a futile battle with mindsets that can't accept that handicaps of structural biases in Western secondary sources exist & thus justify
290:
languages are therefore preferred to
English translations of ancient and medieval primary sources. There is no rule here that needs to be ignored: if you wrote an article based on English translations of ancient sources, that's ... okay, I guess ... but ideally they should be replaced with modern reliable sources -- regardless of the language of those sources. The article as you wrote it, though, should not be listed as a GA, because it is essentially an OR nightmare.
177:). Even if they were cut out, however, it's still essentially a list of artworks and books where Titus is depicted: it would be much preferable, to my way of thinking, if it were a couple of paragraphs talking about how e.g. the story of his relationship with Berenice inspired later writers of romances, while the visual arts were more influenced by the sacking of the temple at Jerusalem and Titus' subsequent triumph for his successes in the Jewish wars.
270:
don't consider it important, so the secondary sources aren't there, & those that exist often aren't collected into libraries -- both academic & public -- because that group doesn't consider it important. (No, I can't read
Amharic, Oromo, or similar Ethiopian languages, so I'm unable to access
191:
Well, I would be partial to a distinction being made between "fictional" modern works and "legendary" works from late antiquity and the middle ages. Up until I added it yesterday the article made no reference to the fact that apparently at least some medieval
Christian antisemites believed Titus was
328:
article was obvious, but I've seen some pretty shitty GAR closes recently, and someone might come along and interpret what you wrote above as a "don't unlist" !vote, when it clearly isn't, and close this as a 2-1 "no consensus to delist", so clarifying that we're all in agreement that this article
238:
modern reliable sources, then it doesn't meet GNG and should be deleted. It is theoretically acceptable to use ancient primary sources, but ideally those should be replaced when better (modern, critical) sources are found, and if no such sources exist, then the article should be deleted or merged.
164:
I agree that the use of sources appears problematic. The prose mostly looks fine (though e.g. the introductory paragraphs to "Adult life" could stand to be improved). I'm also not hugely keen on the list of "Titus in later arts", especially because I'm not convinced by the blurbs given here that
289:
Technically, modern secondary sources written in other languages are just as good as modern secondary sources written in
English, and should not be replaced with English-language sources unless those English sources are of the same or superior quality. Modern secondary sources written in other
215:
On the one hand, I don't have a problem with using primary sources in an article. There are many significant historical topics where an editor needs to rely more on primary sources than she/he prefer to. But in the case of this article, Titus lived during one of the better-documented (&
309:
I think we're getting off into the weeds here. You may disagree with me about the needs sometimes to rely heavily on primary sources. However, were you to agree with me about that exception, I believe we'd both agree there is no reason for this article to fall into that exception: there are
239:
Obviously this is completely irrelevant for the topic at hand, though; I'm just talking about theory here. An article on a topic where modern reliable sources probably do exist should not be deleted, but it also shouldn't be listed as a GA as long as those sources are not cited.
141:
containing OR, is very poorly formatted and is not easily verifiable, as in order to check it against its sources one would need to make a detailed list of the factual claims in the article and then read two books from start to finish, checking the points off one by one.
266:, much of the recent Ethiopian Civil War -- yet there are no easily accessible secondary sources about these battles that supply any detail. And I know this because I looked -- hard. It's a result of systemic bias in Anglo-European academia & news media;
192:
a Roman client king, in the kingdom of Libya, north of Judah (LOL!). This is relevant historiographic information, but as the article is currently structured I could think of nowhere to put it except the shopping list of fictional representations.
130:
Or is all the information in the article actually gleaned from the small number of modern critical works that are listed as "sources" but are only cited inline a few times each?
258:
Most of the examples that come immediately to my mind are from
Ethiopian history. For example, the general history books mention several important battles --
310:
sufficient secondary sources about the life & career of Titus that they should be used here more extensively than they have been. --
120:
This is a very surprising GA. Out of more than a hundred inline citations, all but nineteen are from first- and second-century sources.
17:
338:
299:
248:
201:
153:
134:
If the answer to either of the first two, especially the second, is "yes", then the article as it stands is an OR nightmare.
69:
108:
232:
There are many significant historical topics where an editor needs to rely more on primary sources than she/he prefer to
65:
272:
263:
182:
324:
Agreed. I thought it unnecessary to respond directly until now, as I thought my agreement with you as relates to
50:
259:
42:
178:
343:
319:
304:
284:
253:
225:
206:
186:
158:
113:
335:
296:
245:
198:
150:
329:
does not meet the sourcing criterion for GA (and apparently never did) seemed like a good idea.
315:
280:
221:
103:
124:
Are we taking the extant textual traditions
Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus at their words?
368:
362:
330:
291:
240:
193:
145:
311:
276:
217:
98:
58:
234:
actually doesn't make much sense -- if a topic has not been covered in
275:, so I've moved on to easier topics to research & write about. --
35:
137:
If the answer to the third is "yes", then the article, while not
85:
77:
46:
8:
7:
127:Are we interpreting them critically?
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
24:
86:Watch article reassessment page
1:
344:23:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
169:in some of the works (e.g.
114:20:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
385:
264:Three battles of Sarbakusa
320:18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
305:08:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
285:20:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
254:11:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
226:07:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
207:23:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
187:09:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
159:06:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
260:Battle of Shimbra Kure
89:โข GAN review not found
230:Not to nitpick, but
165:Titus actually even
273:WP:Ignore all rules
175:The Roman Mysteries
341:
302:
251:
204:
156:
376:
334:
295:
244:
197:
179:Caeciliusinhorto
149:
111:
106:
101:
97:
88:
82:
73:
54:
384:
383:
379:
378:
377:
375:
374:
373:
359:
358:
109:
104:
99:
92:
84:
63:
40:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
382:
380:
372:
371:
361:
360:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
212:
211:
210:
209:
132:
131:
128:
125:
118:
117:
116:
90:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
381:
370:
367:
366:
364:
345:
340:
337:
332:
327:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
308:
307:
306:
301:
298:
293:
288:
287:
286:
282:
278:
274:
269:
265:
261:
257:
256:
255:
250:
247:
242:
237:
233:
229:
228:
227:
223:
219:
214:
213:
208:
203:
200:
195:
190:
189:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
163:
162:
161:
160:
155:
152:
147:
143:
140:
135:
129:
126:
123:
122:
121:
115:
112:
107:
102:
95:
91:
87:
81:
80:
76:
71:
67:
62:
61:
57:
52:
48:
44:
39:
38:
33:
32:
29:
26:
19:
325:
267:
235:
231:
174:
170:
166:
144:
138:
136:
133:
119:
93:
78:
74:
60:Article talk
59:
55:
36:
27:
171:Ecce Romani
139:necessarily
105:Consermonor
47:visual edit
96:: Delisted
331:Hijiri 88
292:Hijiri 88
241:Hijiri 88
194:Hijiri 88
146:Hijiri 88
110:Opus meum
363:Category
312:llywrch
277:llywrch
218:llywrch
167:appears
100:Iazyges
70:history
51:history
37:Article
369:GAR/61
94:Result
79:Watch
28:Titus
16:<
326:this
316:talk
281:talk
268:they
222:talk
183:talk
173:and
66:edit
43:edit
236:any
365::
342:)
339:ใใ
318:)
303:)
300:ใใ
283:)
262:,
252:)
249:ใใ
224:)
205:)
202:ใใ
185:)
157:)
154:ใใ
83:โข
68:|
49:|
45:|
336:่
333:(
314:(
297:่
294:(
279:(
246:่
243:(
220:(
199:่
196:(
181:(
151:่
148:(
75:ยท
72:)
64:(
56:ยท
53:)
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.