Jump to content

Talk:Diana Veteranorum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsourced quote

[edit]

I removed the following unsourced quote for now, please do not readd it without a proper (complete) reference:

A vicus in Numidia, 90 km SW of Constantine, it became a municipium in A.D. 162, founded for the benefit of veterans of the Third Augustan Legion. In the middle of the 3d c. there was a Christian community with a bishop. The Byzantines occupied the town....The center covered a vast area. It is in a plain which possesses numerous oil presses and remains of farms, cisterns, and wells. An aqueduct brought water from the spring of Aïn-Soltane....There is a temple, possibly dedicated to Diana, in the SE part of the town...Three monuments date from the Byzantine period. A church was built on the forum.A small fort (20.2 x 16.8 m) was attached to the Arch of Macrinus. Finally, a fort (61 x 53 m) was built about 100 m E of the forum. Richard Stillwell

--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, next time verify the author and some related phrases on the quotation before erase.You'll find easily on google that it is related to

The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, cited on the "bibliography "section". Consequently I reinstate the quotation, adding some data.--Cresthaven (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the exact info. However after taking a closer look now, I'm going to remove that again but for other reasons. Simply because it is not suited for quote. First of all the author of the quote is not Stillwell or any of the other editors of the Princeton Encylopedia but M. LEGLAY . More importantly the content as such is not particularly suited for a quote as it is simply description of the site. The information should simply integrated into the normal article, which already contains a part of the information anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also please do not add rather outdated literature under bibliography or references. The general idea is that books or journal articles listed there represents the most recent authoritative publication on the subject. By a rule of thumb that pretty much excludes any publications from the 19th century. Even quoting Mommsen here is imho rather borderline. He is a famous historian but his pupblications and his knowledge of Diana Veteranorum lack over a 100 years of new archeological findings and historical knowledge established in that period.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sincerely I don't want any edit war with user KMHkmh. As I wrote, I understand him because he is a mathematician. But in archeology and ancient history we cannot maintain the same "math mentality"....As an Italian archeologist wrote, archeology is like a math equation where we don't have most data, but we have to make the equation (meaning we have to "surmise" it). So, when I am researching the ancient roman colonies in Maghreb or in Algeria, I cannot find information at all in most cases (mainly with small cities)...and I have to use old information (even a century or more old). If not, what I am going to write? Furthermore, the XIX books are very well written and contain archeological information that has been destroyed by the wars between French colonists and Algerian moslems in the last 2 centuries. No data are available since 1970 on many small roman localities! I invite KMHkmh to write with me the next article I plan to do on Oppidum Novum: he will see how difficult it is to find information on google, yahoo or on recent books.....Only on old French colonial books he will find something. And about the quotations: there are many similar on many Wikipedias (but for me this is secundary, and I personally don't care about) Sincerely, --Cresthaven (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Math mentality has nothing to do with that, if anything the sourcing is probably less strict in math than on historical subjects.
While I appreciate that compile and extend articles on Roman places in Northern Africa, they nevertheless need to based on appropriate sources. That means sources from the 19th century are in most cases not suited to source information about antiquity. This has to do with scholarly standards but more importantly knowledge being different back then. Citing from 19th century travel guides is even more problematic because the writer is not just lacking the knowledge of the last 100-150 years but he also wasn't even a scholar on the subject to begin with. So at best such a source can be used for contemporary information, that is name or description of the condition of the ruins in the 19th century, but it cannot be used sourcing any claims about the city during antiquity or middle ages. The reason why the sourcing policies of Wikipedia are so strict here is not to torment authors or block content, but to ensure that all the information in Wikipedia articles is actually correct. The rule of thumb here is that if the information is not really reliable and their is no reputable source for it, don't put it into Wikipedia articles. You can find the Wikipedia sourcing guidelines here: WP:V, WP:IRS and WP:RSN.
Take for instance Vereker, the name he gives ("res publica Dianensium") strikes me somewhat unusual. So how do we know that this actually correct and not some false information if the the source is 19th cenutry travel writer rather than history scholar?
If you have problems to access appropriate more recent sources as they are often not available online, you can make use of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. If your search for sources leads to articles you cannot access online or that are behind a paywall (like most scholarly books and journals), you can ask there and another Wikipedian with access to that particular source might help you out.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kmhkmh, you have got completely the wrong end of the stick here. "Marcel Le Glay was, until his death in 1993, Professor Emeritus at the Sorbonne, Paris..." (google-amazon) and a leading specialist on Roman Africa. There is no "19th century travel guide" here. Cresthaven's English is such that he prefers to quote rather than paraphrase. You might help by rewriting the content into text, otherwise you should leave this alone. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leglay is not the issue, actually I had that source added myself, though I originally didn't realize that the quote was from it (it was mislabeled under Stilwell and I hadn't looked at for 2 years).
The issue with he quote is not potentially outdated material, but that such quotes are "unusual" and imho inappropriate. Not to mention that large parts of articles composed of such quotes are likely to be a copyright violation. I already pointed out above that rewriting is the ultimate way to go. However imho it is not appropriate to place such quotes in existing articles, just because you are not comfortable in English to rewrite it properly. If that is the case one should post the material on the talk page and wait for another editor to integrate it.
The issue with the outdated material refers to Verseker, who imho has no place in the bibliography nor should he used as a source. Even to describe the situation of the ruins in the 19th century, there is scholarly material available that should be used instead (for instance Leon Renier: RUINES DE ZANA, L'ANCIENNE DIANA DE NUMIDIE, Revue Archéologique, 1854 (JSTOR)). In addition to that the use of Mommsen is imho borderline questionable as well. He was certainly an eminent historian but 120 years ago.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think KMHkmh is creating a mess about a problem that is totally without importance for our Wikipedia. Verseker or Leglay are reliable sources IMHO. Who cares if they are too old? We care about serious sources, nothing else. I totally agree with Johnbod. One suggestion: KMHkmh should add to the article what wrote Leon Renier on JSTOR, instead of complaining about (IMHO) irrelevant problems.BTW why to define Mommsen "borderline questionable as well"? IMHO what wrote Cresthaven about Diana Veteranorum is OK. It is true his comment that "archeological information...has been destroyed by the wars between French colonists and Algerian moslems in the last 2 centuries. No data are available since 1970 on many small roman localities". Indeed many ruins from Roman centuries have disappeared in the last decades, even because Algerian Arabs want to erase the past before their arrival in the Maghreb. Since 1963 the Algerians systematically "forget" the archeological research that was done during the "Algerie Francaise"! And all this means that we have to use authors of the last century, if we want to write an article about Diana Veteranorum or about another little roman colonia in Numidia. IMHO the article should remain as it is, or with the addition of Renier-JSTOR excerpts.--48Utilisateur (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, that means in cases where indeed no more recent scholarly work is available we may have to resort to scholarly work from the 19th century (not so much travel writing however).--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is astonishing to see that KMHkmh keeps "fighting" against the opinion of 4 or 5 wikipedians and keeps not accepting the point of view of the clear majority. He is alone with his POV and now he even goes to another wiki site to create more mess. IMHO this is the kind of stuff/problems that pushes wikipedians out of Wikipedia! No wonder if Cresthaven goes away from all these discussion about a problem that is totally without importance for our Wikipedia(I would understand him!). Allow me to repeat for the last time that We care about serious sources, nothing else. Regards, --48Utilisateur (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources for Respublica Dianensium

[edit]

Here there are other sources about Respublica dianensium:

and there are more in Italian language.Regards, --48Utilisateur (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to be using res publica in the generic sense, not as a formal name. The reason we require reliable sources is to avoid falling into errors of original interpretation. These sources don't say the same thing as Vereker, they either say the place was called "Dianensium" or that the words res publica dianensium was written on found inscriptions. Vereker doesn't even make the exact claim attributed to him in the article, as that source doesn't say if anyone called it that, or if it was only Vereker. Just because it's old, doesn't make it an accurate or reliable source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I hadn't seen that use before but as I understand it now "res publica" (=public thing/matter) is simply used for community not just on national but also on a local level, in other words it seems to be general term for municipality. To that you added to add the actual name with a genitive case. So you get municipality of <name> (like city of New York). So res publica Dianensium should mean something like the municipality of the folks of Diana Veteranorum. Note that dianensium is the genetive case of dianenses, which means something like "inhabitats of Diana (Veteranorum)" (see [4]).
As far as sources go, let me iterate again, that Vereker is certainly not an appropriate source. However there are some scholarly French and Italian sources (partially already listed by 48Utilisateur above) and a German scholarly source that is already is in the article (Horster, p.424). In short all we have to do here is replacing Vereker by scholarly source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've narrowed the claim bit, you can expand it back if you think I've cut too much. The sources supplied in this sub-thread do not agree with the idea that "Respublica" is part of the formal name, and looking at Vereker, he doesn't seem to be saying that either, as he also talks of the Municipium Dianae Veteranorum. I don't see anyone insisting that "Municipium" was considered the name of the specific city.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also added a source, as the inscriptions being discussed didn't all have res publica, some had versions of municipium.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"res publica Dianensium" is literally in the cited source (Horster) in the footnote at the bottom of page 423. Also note that afaik there is no word Dianensium (hence it does not make sense as name on its own) but there is dianenses of which dianensium is the genetive case. You don't have rely on my extremely rusty Latin skills for that, but the link in my posting further up explains that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I think it's better to say what was found on the inscriptions without interpretation (either original or from unreliable sources). Diana Veteranorum was referred to as a "res publica" on a couple of inscriptions, most sources are just reporting that. Any jump to the idea that it was commonly termed that, or that it was a formal appellation, must be sourced more directly and reliably.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But Horster in the footnote is not talking about a particular (simgle) inscription using the name "res publica Dianesium" but she is using the name herself in that footnote. Nobody suggested a common use, but just that the name was used. Also I'm not aware of any source to refer to "res publica" without a clear context Diana/Dianenses/Dianensium. If in particular case in one individual sentence only "res publica" is used, then it is like using "city" within an English text, when from the context it is already clear which city is meant.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Horster is talking about a particular inscription. That's what the "CIL VIII 4586" reference is. That's a direct citation to a specific inscription in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum database. The only place people have actually read "res publica Dianesium" is on a couple of Latin inscriptions found in the city. It's a phrase to describe the town found on that Latin inscription. Later inscriptions used "municipium", but that doesn't represent a change in the town's name, any more than "a town called Las Vegas" or a "a city called Las Vegas" should be represented as "Atowncalled Las Vegas" or "Acitycalled Las Vegas" as if they were distinctive. The sentence currently in the article looks a bit illiterate in this way. 48Utilisateur's own sources back up that the phrase res publica is just the generic (in the French translation) "la ville de", here and also from the fact that this one also prefaces other settlements with generic respublicas on the same page. I don't think we'll find a good source that says the city changed names, because I don't think it actually did. The only sources provided so far have been of the "Acitycalled Dianesium" type. The sentence shouldn't be about different "names", it should be about what scholars actually found and wrote about, paraphrased directly from good sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit lost what you are trying to get at now or you essentially telling me that we agree?. "la ville de" in French is the exact analogon to "municipality/city of" in English, both (de/of) indicate a possession which in Latin is expressed with genitive case hence Dianensium (genitive of dianenses). The basic name is always Diana, but in can be phrased in differennt ways "res publica Dianensium" being one and "Diana Veteranorum" being another (similarly in English, the city of New York, the city of the New Yorkers or New York City all mean the same thing and are essentially the same name). Yes, Horster refers to the inscription but as source for her comment, which indicates she considers "res publica Dianensium" as the settlement's proper name at the time. "municipium" is essentially a promotion in rank for settlements (common terms increasing by rank are vicus/civitas, municipium, colonia), hence sources/inscriptions after the promotion use "municipium" instead of "res publica" to point out the increased status. I don't really see the problem with a name being known only from a few inscriptions, that is true in many cases and in my experience usually enough for scholars to accept it as a name in use, in particular Horster seems to do exactly that. There is no indication that she doubts the name in any way.
I agree that the current description in the text is not optimal, not to mention that Vereker is back again. The article has still variety of other issues, the quote by Leglay should be replaced by our own description with the Leglay as a source. The Mommsen citation needs to fixed and blog citation should be replaced as well. The "See also" section needs to be adjusted to the style guide. I hope all that can be done without further trouble after things have settled down a bit here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we agree about the meaning of res publica and that the name didn't essentially change. The point is that since it's not really a distinct "additional name" then it shouldn't be presented as such in the article. My edit that you reverted reflected what most of the sources actually say; that they found a couple of inscriptions where the name was prefaced with res publica. That's not the same as saying it had "Another contemporary name..." or that "It was called Respublica Dianensium". It's like people googled "the city, Las Vegas", found some mentions of that text string, and wanted to rename the article Thecity Lasvegas. Having seen the difference between Vereker's capitalization and that found in better sources, it's pretty clear that "Respublica Dianensium" was not a set formal name for the place. We should certainly mention the existence of the inscriptions, because they are interesting, but we shouldn't jump to "the Romans all called it "Respublica Dianensium" because that is not clearly supported by the sources offered. The simple existence of the inscriptions is supported.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok now I understand what your issue with the formulation was, may the term "name" was a bit misleading there. I reverted your edit for a unrelated reason though, it just used "Dianensium" instead "res publica Dianensium", the former makes no sense on its own for the reason I explained further up.
I don't quite agree to the conclusion that "res publica Dianensium" was not used as a proper name. First of all what Vereker writes is imho of no relevance whatsoever and I don't really see where the reputable sources do not consider it as a proper name. I see your argument "from a single inscription" we don't know what Romans called it. However I don't think the scholarly sources see it that way. Also being that meticulous raises the question whether we do not at all how the Romans called it. The municipium variant may also just result from a very inscription or documents. And for Diana Veteranorum we strictly speaking only know right that scholars today file the city under that name, but it is completely unclear at first glance in which Roman sources that term is used. In short I understand your argument, but imho you are overthinking this. At least looking at Roman sources in general it seems that the "res publica + genitive" was common construct, so considering such term on an inscription to be exception rather than rule, doesn't strike me convincing. But be that as it may we can of course simply state, that in an inscription the settlement was called "res publica dianensium" rather than saying Romans called it that way.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. This: we can of course simply state, that in an inscription the settlement was called "res publica dianensium" rather than saying Romans called it that way is all that I thought was required. (An analogy for my thinking was that: "Mr. John Green" is a kind of formal proper name and a common construct, but it would be needlessly confusing to say it was a distinct name from "John Green" or to present it in a way where the general reader might be lead to confuse the "Mister" as the first name. If you have a census form that lists a "Mr. John Green" then it's best to simply say "a census form listed a 'Mr. John Green' in 1952" than it is to risk avoidable confusion saying "somebody says his other name was Mister John Green".) But a sentence in the form you suggest would be great, and more easily supported across more sources. Proof of the citations is plentiful, the interpretation is slightly more nuanced than what had been otherwise suggested. Thanks.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

skip any formulation with "name" or "called", but raises the question whether we should mention the inscription at all. Because I don't think the article needs or even should list all inscriptions found in Diana Veteranorum verbatim, but more importantly

WOW...here we have continuous talk around the same thing....Elaquate, you seem a master of byzantine talk! KMKkmh you write kms and kms of the same thing in order to get what you want...OK. I give up with your POVs....Good luck forever.

I cannot understand why as a source is accepted (by user:Elaquate and by user:Kmhkmh) Leon Vernier of 1845 and not Verseker of 1871 or Mommsen of some years later....sincerely to me this is a mystery. A mystery that seems to be centered on "arrogance".....BD.
I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you mean here. Can you point out where anyone has discussed Vernier? I'm not sure what your reference means. The Verseker is an outdated non-expert travel guide from 1871. It might be interesting reading but it shouldn't be used as a source of scholarly fact. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a rerun of the discussion from this August. The IP seems to be a sock puppet of cresthaven, who in turn is most likely identical with the banned user User:48Utilisateur\Brunodam.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zana (whose Latin name is Diana Veteranorum) is not Aïn Zana

[edit]

Zana (whose Latin name is Diana Veteranorum) is an archaeological site located in the territory of the commune of Zana El Beida in the wilaya of Batna, in Algeria, halfway between Ain Djasser and the town of Batna in the East of Algeria. On the other hand, Aïn Zana is a commune in the wilaya of Souk Ahras in Algeria, located approximately 36 km northeast of Souk Ahras East of Algeria. 41.105.5.192 (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diana_Veteranorum&oldid=1195522399"