Template:Did you know nominations/Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Sourcing issues and the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nomination.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex edit
- ... that Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex may be the only Roman consul to have come from Roman Britain? "It is right to mention the possibility, however remote, that three prominent generals of the later Antonine period may have been natives of Colchester ... and the two Macrini Vindices. All three were enrolled in the tribus Claudia, to whch Camulodunum belonged. ...the younger Macrinus served as equestrians officers in Britain early in their career ... and in any case, the nomenclature Macrinius Vindex suggests origin in a Celtic region." -- Anthony Birley, The People of Roman Britain (Berkeley: University of California, 1979), pp. 116f
Created by Llywrch (talk). Self-nominated at 20:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC).
- Reviewed: Waiting on requested changes to Poverty in the Democratic Republic of the Congo above.
@Llywrch: New, long enough, adequately referenced, no copyvio, and the hook is interesting. However, the source (which can be found here) does not mention that Vindex was possibly the only Roman consul from Britain. Do you have a source that directly states this, or some other proof (like a list / book that mentions the origins of the other consuls) for the hook? Applodion (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Applodion, the proof for this assertion is indirect, & is based on a number of possibilities. First, the fact that Vindex was a consul is certain, for the inscription on his tombstone establishes that clearly. Second, please note the language is that he may be the only one. By this, I want to make it clear that he may not be from Britain; however, what evidence we have places him there -- provided in this article. My next source, Géza Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter der Antoninen (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1977), states on page 318 about Vindex: "Angesichts seiner Namen und seiner Claudius tribus wohl entweder aus Colonia Agrippinenisum oder aus Camulodunum, jedenfalls aus einer westlichen Provinz." (Translated: "Given his name and his Claudius tribus, probably either from Colonia Agrippinenisum or Camulodunum, in any case from a western province.") So his connection to Britain is, admittedly, debatable.
Now I suspect your concern is over the portion that he was maybe the only consul to come from Britain. I can understand your skepticism at this, but Roman Britain is one of three Roman provinces which cannot be shown to have with certainty produced any man who was a Roman consul; the other two are Judea (likely because of the chronic unrest by the Jews & Samaritans, which alienated the wealthy of that province from Rome) & Roman Egypt (which was carefully isolated from contact with the Roman Senate due to its importance as a food source for Rome). There will be some uncertainty about whether consuls came from these provinces because there are a few hundred consuls whose origins we do not know -- & it is always difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative. However, here I can cite Anthony Birley in the book The People of Roman Britain (p. 20): "At any rate, no certain British senators can be detected, apart from the anomalous King Cogidubnus." And a prerequisite to becoming a Roman consul is that one has to be enrolled in the Roman Senate; unless another Roman Briton can be proved to be a Roman Senator -- or a Roman Senator shown to have come from Britain -- Vindex may be the only man to hold this distinction.
Having written all that, I have to admit there is one other possible consul from Roman Britain, about whom I learned after submitting this article for DYK: Marcus Statius Priscus, consul in 159. While Birley admits this is possible on pp. 116f, other experts have suggested more strongly that he came from Dalmatia (e.g. Alföldy in the book mentioned above, pp. 314f) than that he came from Britain. I have not yet found another expert who entertains the possibility.
To rephrase this in a TL:DR fashion. To be a Roman consul, one had to be a senator. Roman Britain is known to have produced at most three men who were Senators, of whom one -- Cogidubnus -- is not known to have been a consul. The other two were consuls, but possibly did not come from Britain. Of these two, Vindex is considered to have the stronger case of having come from Britain. Hence, he may be the only one. (Or he may be one of two, or may not have come from Britain at all.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: Thank you for the response. The main problem for the hook is that it is not referenced in the article, and hooks normally should be directly referenced. I think it would be ideal if you could reword this explanation a little bit and add it as note to the article; in this way, everyone can see why Vindex might (or might not) have been the only consul from Britain. Then we can pass the DYK as well. Applodion (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion:, I made the revision per your request. Does it meet your expectations? -- llywrch (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: Great! As soon as the QPQ is done, I can pass this. Applodion (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Apparently the nominator for Democratic Republic of the Congo will need some time for improvements, so I think it is best that we simply pass this one now. Applodion (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: Great! As soon as the QPQ is done, I can pass this. Applodion (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Applodion:, I made the revision per your request. Does it meet your expectations? -- llywrch (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: Thank you for the response. The main problem for the hook is that it is not referenced in the article, and hooks normally should be directly referenced. I think it would be ideal if you could reword this explanation a little bit and add it as note to the article; in this way, everyone can see why Vindex might (or might not) have been the only consul from Britain. Then we can pass the DYK as well. Applodion (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Applodion, the proof for this assertion is indirect, & is based on a number of possibilities. First, the fact that Vindex was a consul is certain, for the inscription on his tombstone establishes that clearly. Second, please note the language is that he may be the only one. By this, I want to make it clear that he may not be from Britain; however, what evidence we have places him there -- provided in this article. My next source, Géza Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter der Antoninen (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1977), states on page 318 about Vindex: "Angesichts seiner Namen und seiner Claudius tribus wohl entweder aus Colonia Agrippinenisum oder aus Camulodunum, jedenfalls aus einer westlichen Provinz." (Translated: "Given his name and his Claudius tribus, probably either from Colonia Agrippinenisum or Camulodunum, in any case from a western province.") So his connection to Britain is, admittedly, debatable.
- @Llywrch: You will need a citation at the end of the sentences where the hook fact is mentioned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Which sentence are you talking about? All assertions in the article have citations. There is a stretch of text in the section "Family background" that does not have a citation, but that's because it's a simple explanation of the probabilities that Vindex & Statius Priscus came from Roman Britain. To repeat what I wrote above, the authorities -- who are named in the article -- consider Vindex to have the strongest case of having come from Britain. Hence, he may be the only one. (Or he may be one of two, or may not have come from Britain at all. After all is said & done, the evidence is not conclusive.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- The sentence is "Of the remaining two, Vindex is more certain to have come from Britain than Priscus, which could make him the only consul known to have come from Roman Britain." But now I come to look at the article better, I see that there are a number of paragraphs that do not have citations at the end of the paragraph. This means there is much uncited information in the article which needs attribution before this nomination gets promoted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: It has been a month since the last comment here, can you please cite the uncited paragraphs so that this can proceed? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please read the text of the article for yourself. There is nothing lacking a reliable source that I honestly believe needs one. All other statements are either uncontroversial -- similar to the level of "Julius Caesar was a Roman" -- or stating a common sense conclusion based on facts for which reliable sources have been provided. I am beginning to feel that my nomination has been subjected to an unreasonably strict enforcement of the requirement of this rule -- a death by a thousand niggling cuts. I don't know why it has been subjected to this, especially as there have been countless other articles that have provided less citations yet passed DYK. If this article is not satisfactory in its current form, then I'll withdraw it. I'm tired of waiting for intelligent action to be taken. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: Please indicate which inline citation covers the hook facts because I can't see it. The DYK rules require there to be a citation for the actual sentence where the hook facts occur. (I suspect that you have no source and are in fact stating a common sense conclusion, as you see it; Wikipedia calls that "original research" and does not allow it.) A different hook could be suggested, but failing that, unless you provide a suitable citation, this nomination will fail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have explained it at length above, in response to Applodion. The point is not that Vindex was the only consul from Roman Britain, but that -- based on the cited opinions of at least 2 experts -- if any had come from that province, he is the most likely one. Or would you prefer that I present a detailed analysis of the article as it currently stands, showing where there are facts for which citations have been provided, which are expert opinions for which citations have also been provided, & which are trivial, common sense conclusions? -- llywrch (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think it is somewhat difficult to square the rather rigid rules of DYK and its desire for verifiable facts with the rather speculative nature of this article about an individual about whom few hard facts seem to be known. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have explained it at length above, in response to Applodion. The point is not that Vindex was the only consul from Roman Britain, but that -- based on the cited opinions of at least 2 experts -- if any had come from that province, he is the most likely one. Or would you prefer that I present a detailed analysis of the article as it currently stands, showing where there are facts for which citations have been provided, which are expert opinions for which citations have also been provided, & which are trivial, common sense conclusions? -- llywrch (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: Please indicate which inline citation covers the hook facts because I can't see it. The DYK rules require there to be a citation for the actual sentence where the hook facts occur. (I suspect that you have no source and are in fact stating a common sense conclusion, as you see it; Wikipedia calls that "original research" and does not allow it.) A different hook could be suggested, but failing that, unless you provide a suitable citation, this nomination will fail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please read the text of the article for yourself. There is nothing lacking a reliable source that I honestly believe needs one. All other statements are either uncontroversial -- similar to the level of "Julius Caesar was a Roman" -- or stating a common sense conclusion based on facts for which reliable sources have been provided. I am beginning to feel that my nomination has been subjected to an unreasonably strict enforcement of the requirement of this rule -- a death by a thousand niggling cuts. I don't know why it has been subjected to this, especially as there have been countless other articles that have provided less citations yet passed DYK. If this article is not satisfactory in its current form, then I'll withdraw it. I'm tired of waiting for intelligent action to be taken. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Based on the exchange above, Llywrch I think a new, less contested hook may need to be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Alt2... that the
Romantombstone of Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex provides details of his career? Szzuk (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
-
- Approving the ALT2 hook, though I don't think we need the word "Roman", and relying on the review done by Applodion in other respects. The article is now sufficiently referenced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for raising an objection here, but from what I've read, during the Roman (and also the Greek) periods, it was common for tombstones to discuss the life and career of the deceased. Thus, in the scale of things, the hook fact is not unusual. However, I think the hook could work if an image for the tombstone could be found: Applodion is the tombstone still extant, and if so, do images of it exist? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, it may be common on Roman tombstones of this period but it is interesting and a fact that not many people will know (I didn't). This nomination has been hanging around for a long time and I had hoped it would be promoted soon because I don't like letting down our occasional contributors by introducing endless delays. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Furthermore, if a picture of the tombstone were freely available, Llywrch would probably have added it to the article. Applodion (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well I suppose that's a good point. I'll just wait for Llywrch's reply, then once that happens, I'll restore the tick. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Illustrations of Roman tombstones have been problematic. One issue is that the photos that are most accessible usually are under a "free, not for commercial reuse" license. Another, which applies in this case, is that the Italian government has claimed a fee on all images of inscriptions, archeological finds, & other historical objects of any date, ostensibly to benefit the nation's museums. (I have my own thoughts on the matter.) Moreover, not only am I unsure whether claiming "fair use" provides Wikipedia enough cover for these concerns, I'd rather not deal with the "absolute free use or delete it" rabble here. So for the most part I've simply ignored the matter of illustrations in creating articles, unless commons has something relevant.
P.S. At this point I've grown tired of this business. To repeat myself, I have no objection if this nomination is simply rejected. -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I understand this nomination has been delayed, but I cannot in good conscious promote such a bland/obvious hook as ALT2. For the history buffs out there, I would like to suggest:
- ALT3: ... that Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex rose from membership in the equestrian order to serve in the Roman Senate? Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- BTW there is no reference for the fact that he won the dona militaria award. Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: This source (which is linked from source 10) seems to mention Vindex's dona militaria award. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: if you think ALT3 is properly sourced, you can go ahead and approve it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Illustrations of Roman tombstones have been problematic. One issue is that the photos that are most accessible usually are under a "free, not for commercial reuse" license. Another, which applies in this case, is that the Italian government has claimed a fee on all images of inscriptions, archeological finds, & other historical objects of any date, ostensibly to benefit the nation's museums. (I have my own thoughts on the matter.) Moreover, not only am I unsure whether claiming "fair use" provides Wikipedia enough cover for these concerns, I'd rather not deal with the "absolute free use or delete it" rabble here. So for the most part I've simply ignored the matter of illustrations in creating articles, unless commons has something relevant.
- Well I suppose that's a good point. I'll just wait for Llywrch's reply, then once that happens, I'll restore the tick. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Furthermore, if a picture of the tombstone were freely available, Llywrch would probably have added it to the article. Applodion (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, it may be common on Roman tombstones of this period but it is interesting and a fact that not many people will know (I didn't). This nomination has been hanging around for a long time and I had hoped it would be promoted soon because I don't like letting down our occasional contributors by introducing endless delays. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Let's not prolong this nomination's agony anymore. Approving ALT3 as being interesting, cited, and the hook fact being verified in the source. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The very last sentence could really use a citation. SL93 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Will this be fixed? I'm not sure if this is a DYK rule, but I think there shouldn't be any unsourced paragraphs, even if it's referenced further on in the article. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- @SL93: yes, it is Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. SL93 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Would that be the same for the end of paragraphs? For example, the first paragraph under the section Career as an equites only has the first two sentences with a citation. I might just be being dumb about it, but it just seems to not look right. Though I guess it could just be my personal preference. If not, then there might not be a paragraph citation issue. SL93 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- @SL93: yes, it is Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Will this be fixed? I'm not sure if this is a DYK rule, but I think there shouldn't be any unsourced paragraphs, even if it's referenced further on in the article. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- @SL93: you can apply "citation needed" tags anywhere you think a citation is needed. In the paragraph you cited, there certainly needs to be more citations for his different commissions. (It may be the same cite as in the first or second sentence, but as these sources are offline, only the page creator can provide that.) Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- The nominator has mentioned above that they are discouraged with the nomination and may refrain from making any more comments. If the issues are easily solvable, then perhaps this can still move forward, but otherwise it may need to be marked for closure as withdrawn. Solving the referencing issues is made more difficult by the fact that all but three of the references used in the article are offline, making it hard to find statements in the sources that could be used as references. From what I can tell, the first paragraph of the "Career as an equites" section implies that the section is sourced to the tombstone (or at the very least, to reference 7). However, taking a look at it (as it's one of the three online references) does not confirm all the information. From analysis, I presume that the last sentence of the last paragraph uses Konsulat und Senatorenstand as a reference, but there's no inline citation. @Yoninah and SL93: Thoughts? Should we ask the nominator for clarification, or given the circumstances, should this nomination be closed as stale? I'm also considering notifying the relevant WikiProjects (i.e. Rome and Ancient history) for help if needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
