Talk:Caracalla: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:44, 25 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caracalla article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Caracalla has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 1, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 8, 2007, April 8, 2008, April 8, 2009, April 8, 2011, April 8, 2014, April 8, 2017, April 8, 2019, April 8, 2022, April 8, 2023, and April 8, 2024.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Military history: Roman & Byzantine / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rome High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Phoenicia Low‑importance

	Phoenicia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Roman and Byzantine emperors Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Corinne, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 24 December 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Why there is no mention of his North African/Berber ancestry?

Last time I edited this kind of information(unwanted by some) this was marked as vandalism even despite inserting sources, so I'm afraid to edit by myself now. Barbar03 (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbar03 - Feel free to post a source here on the talk page and a proposed modification of the article. I'll take a look at it. Your current account does not appear to have edited this article, and so I can't take a look at what edits you originally made. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He may have had Syrian ancestry through his mother, but none of this is definite. For the most part, it is best to state he is descended from patrician Roman/Italic stock.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is no mention of his Italic ancestry?

Barbar03 - The article now says he was Punic on one side and Arab on the other. But the Wikipedia article on his father Severus says that he had Italic and Punic ancestry. So if we're going to obsess about his ancestry we should mention the Italic bit too, right? I can't make the change because the article is not open for editing. --Bacon Man (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, Yes. Furius (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Severus had Italic and Punic ancestry; the Roman ancestry came from his mother's side, while his Punic ancestry came from his father's side.

The article still ignores his Italic (ie Roman) ancestry.

Is anyone going to make this change? How do we attract the attention of the person who controls this page?

Brother Furius seems to agree with me, and no-one has disagreed. There seems to be a dog-in-the-manger attitude at play here. Bacon Man (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody controls any Wikipedia article per the policy on ownership. Barbar03 hasn't edited since late-2019, so they aren't likely to respond. In order to comply with verifiability a reliable source is needed that directly supports the proposed change. Shahid makes no mention of Italic ancestry, only of Phoenician (or Semitic) and Arab ancestry. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full name

I think his full name was 'Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus'. It is in a handbook from my professor 'Roman Law'

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What I think should be changed: undo the edit of 09:54, 2022 March 3‎ which changed the infobox picture.
Why it should be changed: the same edit was already done previously, with the exact same edit summary, and then reverted. He should have gone to the talk page to sort this out, specifically the section "Undo the picture change".

HonestManBad (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you explain here what's wrong with the infobox picture and what you wanted instead? Bacon Man (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Rather than continuing a slow edit war via edit requests, please establish a solid consensus for the image. There are over 200 editors watching this page, none of whom have reverted the image change in the past week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an "edit war" going on, it was started by making a change which had already been reverted instead of going to the talk page where the issue had a dedicated section. And if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so, so spare me the lecture. I had already done what I could. HonestManBad (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reactivated; see section "Undo the picture change" for the discussion. HonestManBad (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please cease this obstruction. Implement the change or present a counter-argument. HonestManBad (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Closing this again, doesn't appear there is consensus to revert back. I suggest you start an RFC to get a solid consensus one way or another if the issue is that important. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool power move. You know, of course, that you are obstructing the issue, acting against all policy, and repeating talking points I've already refuted. Apparently the issue is "that important". With people like you running things, I do not care to get involved beyond this. HonestManBad (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was unable to edit this page

I was going to fix a spelling error in the current version of this article, but I was prevented from doing so because it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 204.11.186.190 (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lock was placed due to long-term issues across several related articles. There are hundreds to thousands of articles that are currently locked for a multitude of reasons: high-traffic vandalism, edit-warring disputes, persistent POV pushing, arbitration enforcement, etc. Indeed, there is an entire topic area on Wikipedia that is locked-out to any editors that do not have extended-confirmed editing permissions. When you encounter an article that has an edit-lock placed on it, the talk page will usually be open (the topic area I am alluding to is an exception to this). You may specify the edit you believe needs to be made here and then I or any other passing editor (with the relevant permissions) can effect the change. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong IPA transcription

It's not ^, it's not æ, it's ɑː[1].

It sounds like an open a.

The correct IPA, according to the source on the article and the one I used above, is (/ˌkɑːrəˈkɑːllə/) Koala Wiki (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following template:

98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Talk:Elagabalus. Following a discussion, I can implement whatever consensus forms. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Press Challenged

In his Caracalla - A Military History (Pen and Sword Books, 2017) Finnish historian Ilkka Syvanne (whose biography should appear in the article's bibliography) argues persuasively that Caracalla was actually one of Rome's most efficient rulers, applying military tact and diplomacy to achieve realistic ends. A careful sifting through the primary sources yields biases (bad press which has generally condemned Caracalla), which Syvanne ably addresses. He implies, at last, that had Caracalla lived, he might very well have conquered Parthia which, at the time of his death, was experiencing internal dissension. The Antonine Constitution made almost everyone within the Empire a Roman citizen and thus stifled thoughts of internal dissension in the provinces. Changes to the military, including to tactics and equipment, are also attributable to Caracalla whose successors, Macrinus, Elagabalus and Severus Alexander, hadn't an iota of Caracalla's military wisdom. Gerry Max, student of Roman history 2600:6C44:1A3F:D86A:B403:4768:3F2E:D30A (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Parthia which, at the time of his death, was experiencing internal dissension" That is a bit of an understatement. Caracalla died in 217. A civil war of the Parthian Empire started in 213, between rival kings Vologases VI and Artabanus IV of Parthia. The Empire collapsed in 224, conquered by Ardashir I and replaced by the Sasanian Empire (224–651). Dimadick (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Embroiled in civil war' better states it. 2600:6C44:1A3F:D86A:9D7D:93C1:62E2:9C66 (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous grammatical syntax

Caracalla responded to this insult by slaughtering the deputation of leading citizens who had unsuspectingly assembled before the city to greet his arrival in December 215, before setting his troops against Alexandria for several days of looting and plunder.

I humbly ask someone with a love of the English language and the power to edit to fix this. The reader is to assume that the leading citizens assembled unsuspectingly, when I think the intent of the author is to say that the assembly of leading citizens "did not expect" Caracalla would slaughter them for the sins of satirizing Alexandrians.

A simple edit would read:

Caracalla responded to this insult by slaughtering the unsuspecting deputation of leading citizens assembled... 172.56.105.49 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to request that we add a sentence or two mentioning the portrayal of Caracalla in the recently released ‘Gladiator II’ film; there is already a similar edit on the Emperor Geta page. Porpstheseus (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Remsense ‥ 论 08:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]