Talk:Genobaud (3rd century)

This article needs a lot of trimming

@Botteville one of the big advantages of Wikipedia which has defined our style of writing is that we do not need to define everything in every article, and in every section - especially not in the lead. The history of the Franks, for example, does not need to be explained in every article where Franks are mentioned. This article contains a LOT of digressions. The lead is enormous by normal WP standard. It should summarize what's in the article in a few hundred words. See MOS:LEADLENGTH. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

How are you guy? Would it surprise you if I agreed with you? This article is in process, which means it is by no means finished. No doubt there is a lot of material that could be referenced in other articles. To carry around all this material concerning the Franks in your head is a lot of work. I don't have a photographic memory. One of the problems I face is, what should be in other articles and what is best here. The complementary set of articles is incomplete and in many ways inadequate. This is what led me to Sicambri, but there are others, such as Hludana. My main objection to you is not that you are interested and want to take a hand, but that you looked up past confrontations of mine with rude and bullying editors and decided to use the same technique. If you want to look at this and make suggestions or preliminary changes, you are welcome. What is not welcome is total reversion on the grounds that whatever I do is is unencyclopedic and wrong. If in the past I seemed to allow that it is because I had other reasons. Right now I'm working on the complementary article set. Then I can get back to Genobaud with better direction. You can't BS me. I am a skilled and confident writer of English with a career of tech writing behind me. I don't GET writer's block. I'm not perfect of course, but show me some respect. We'll be in touch I am sure. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not look up your old edits. You will find it is best not to react to Wikipedia editors by getting personal, and trying to guess what they are thinking. Just think of me as if I am an AI if you want. I just don't always have time to write padded messages right now. There are a LOT of editors here who come in and dump enormous amounts of material, and then leave it that way. If you are going to clean it up and add sources, that's great, but please understand that for other editors such claims are not easy to believe in, because they generally don't work out. You need to avoid this dumping style as much as possible, especially in older articles. Other editors won't wait very long. That just my honest advice. To avoid having your work reverted, you can either (1) change the way you write, by starting with basic, simple sourced material, and adding carefully, or else (2) I STRONGLY advise that you work on drafts before you start adding large amounts of unprocessed materials into articles. Many of us do this when we find that we have lots of ideas to process and find sources for. You can use this method even for small sections you want to improve.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

After looking at this article again, I have to be honest and say most of it should really be deleted. The only section which is really about this person is "The rise of Constantius". I suggest moving what you have to a draft page, and stripping this article down to THAT section. Also, you could then start moving almost all of the lead into the main body. But the article also needs better sourcing. You need to realize that the article as it stands should arguably deleted. You need to strip it back with some urgency. Again, that's my honest advice.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It appears Gennoboudes is only mentioned once in any primary record, in the 10th panegyric. The 11th, as you say, also seems to mention him but does not add much. You are really only citing the panegyric, and the rest is your own commentary. On Wikipedia our commentary has to come from secondary sources. As a starting point, I think it is OK to just explain in a neutral way what the panegyrics say, and make sure you check what the modern translation with its footnotes says. (You can and should cite such notes.) But your own commentary should be removed. As I already said, if these are ideas you want to work further on, you can move them to draftspace. For secondary sources you could for example try this type of site search on google: [site:academia.edu gennoboudes] or [site:jstor.org gennoboudes]. By using the exact spelling from the panegyric you are more likely to get academic works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources

These are examples of what secondary sources say on this topic. There will clearly be more out there.

• Barnes, T. D. (1974), Another Forty Missing Persons (A. D. 260-395), vol. 28, pp. 224–233

page 226: GENNOBOUDES Came to Maximian cum omni sua gente in or before 289, and through him recovered his kingdom (Pan. Lat. 10 [2]. 10.3 ff.). This episode is assigned great significance in some treatments of Rome's relations with Germanic tribes: Gennoboudes was a Frank or Chamavus, he concluded a formal foedus with Rome, whose terms can in part be specified, and which provided for the settlement of Franks in a Roman province

• Castritius, Helmut (1998), "Gennobaudes, Historisches", in Beck, Heinrich; Geuenich, Dieter; Steuer, Heiko (eds.), Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, vol. 11 (2 ed.), De Gruyter, ISBN 978-3-11-015832-8

Notes from Castritius:

• While kinship with the later Gennoboud and belonging to the same dynasty are not provable, they are certainly plausible. Verwandtschaft und Zugehörigkeit zur selben Dynastie sind zwar nicht beweisbar, aber durchaus naheliegend
• faced a Roman offensive across the Rhine between 287 and 289 under Emperor Maximian, was forced to submit with his people, and in return, received the kingship (regnum) as a Roman office and obligation (munus) once again in den J. zw. 287 und 289 mit einer röm. Offensive über den Rhein unter Ks. Maximian konfrontiert, mußte sich mit seinem Volk unterwerfen und erhielt im Gegenzug die Kg.sherrschaft (regnum) als röm. Amt und Verpflichtung (munus) wieder zuerkannt (Panegyrici Latini 10...
• no information about the ethnic affiliation, apart from...
• The panegyric 10 which names him does not call him a king, but it is generally assumed he is the king mentioned in 11, which refers to a king of Franks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Name of article

Although the current name could be a redirect, I think the main name should be Gennoboudes, which is the only spelling I can find in scholarly works, and the one single primary record. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Re name, see eg:

GENNOBOUDES... Came to Maximian cum omni sua gente in or before 289, and through him recovered his kingdom (Pan. Lat. 10 [2]. 10.3 ff.). This episode is assigned great significance in some treatments of Rome's relations with Germanic tribes: Gennoboudes was a Frank or Chamavus, he concluded a formal foedus with Rome, whose terms can in part be specified, and which provided for the settlement of Franks in a Roman province.

He is similarly given that name in PLRE addenda (probably in response to Barnes' complaint that the PLRE didn't originally include him):

Gennoboudes ... Frankish king 287/288 ... King of the Franks, he submitted to Maximianus in 287/288 as a client king, Pan. Lat. II 10. 3-4, III 5. 4.

We should prefer whatever names are conventional, especially deferring to names as used in canonical scholarly works such as PLRE. My opinion therefore is that the article should be moved. Ifly6 (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A contested requested move may be worthwhile. Ifly6 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think this isn't the most important issue. I can see that some scholars prefer to use the spelling of the 4th century person as a sort of "corrected" or "standard" name. The Reallexikon article is about the name, with subsections about the two men, for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Reply to Lancaster

I can't really understand most of what you are saying, except that it is mostly inimical to the article, and mainly wrong. One example. You say Gennoboudes is the only spelling you can find in scholarly works. I have no explanation of your failure on that. I do not know what you mean by it. Your other prescriptions would certainly totally ruin the article. I do not know what your status is on Wikipedia, but you seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings about it. First of all, you cannot delete articles on your own. You need a deletion request and if approved only an administrator with the power to delete can delete. Second, non-administrators cannot change article names, unless, of course, they are granted the power to do so. Again, such a move would have to be submitted for consensus. If you are going to do those things you need tags up front recommending a deletion or name change, and then seek a consensus. I'm telling you right now I oppose any and all major changes you have specified above. Frankly I doubt you are an administrator or have any special powers. You don't behave like a professional. You had no interest at all in this article until I started editing an article you seem to have a personal interest in, Sicambri. There you opposed the simplest change I made and reverted everything I did. Well, I don't have time for the sort of extended and acrimonious and I may add vain discussion you find in Sicambri. As for this article, I find I need to work on the complementary Franks articles before I can make any final decisions as to what goes here. Meanwhile I wanted to sound you out to see what stance you are really taking and what your views really are. Thank you for obliging me. This or any other discussion with you is at an end. This reply is long enough and covers everything.Botteville (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Botteville I'm afraid you can't just tell other Wikipedians to go away. See WP:OWN. You are right that deletion or name change can require several steps if there is real opposition, but this happens often, and in this particular case editors coming here to help discuss the case are not going to find much which is making a case for it to stay as it is. The article as it stands clearly looks like someone's personal draft about lots of different topics. That's why I am trying to help you by advising you, as an experienced editor, of the need to make major changes. If you want to help change the article yourself, then now is the time to do it. As to my interest in this article I was not aware of it, but you have yourself made it clear that you see it as strongly linked to more important articles where I have been editing for a very long time. To be clear, the name change concern is a not a high priority suggestion. That is why I placed it in another talk page section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have trouble connecting you to reality. I'm not telling you to go away, only to follow procedure. Stay, by all means. I can't agree with your view of article deletion. You want to argue about what editors who might come here might possibly do. Do you have a code for that? As for your advice, I'm listening to it, and did offer you the opportunity for two-way discussion, but I cannot say there is anything I agree with, except we could shorten the lead. The history there could be condensed. Are you saying you don't think you should propose the article for deletion? I still don't understand, as that is the only way you are going to delete it. As far as being an experienced editor, if you are one, talk like one and behave like one. You keep saying things that are off, like threatening to use powers you do not have. You keep telling me what editors want and are likely to do without any such evidence. This article was around for a long time as a stub under this name. It is fine. The Panegyrics you complain about were recommended by the previous editors. The book is used a lot in multiple articles because of its recency and importance. We need the right refs not just any refs, don't you agree? As for article, I already explained I am not ready to resume work on it yet. If you attempt to change it I will treat you like any other editor, evaluate the changes and either affirm, revert, or change what you have. Any time is the time to do it. As far as I known you have no right to determine when I work on this article. If you are in administration you could block the article. I can work on some blocked articles but it depends on the strength of the block. I don't give a damn what articles you have worked on and haven't even checked, and am not going to check. You mistake my interest. I'm choosing articles that have to do with Franks and need expansion or more work. OK that covers it. This is all personal.You are wasting our time here. No, I am not targeting you if that is your concern. The chips have to fall where they may. I hope we don't have to keep going through this, I got better things to do. Botteville (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why deletion is at all relevant. I don't think Andrew or anyone else is claiming the article should be deleted. It is highly disruptive to the Wikipedia consensus process to demand immediate intervention of an administrator in content disputes or make, in this case unfounded, accusations that other editors are threatening to use powers you do not have.

It is also especially important to consider existing policies relating to the use of primary sources – WP:PRIMARY – they cannot be used alone but only through intermediation of secondary sources. (And as an aside this is exceptionally the case vis-à-vis panegyrics.) The addition of challengeable material falls under WP:ONUS. Material should be presented consistent with WP:MOS. These are broad principles everyone is expected to follow. There are real issues as to whether the article complies with WP:PRIMARY and the Manual of Style. Asserting This is all personal is inconsistent with site etiquette guidelines. Ifly6 (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't want to try to answer everything but to be clear, after doing a small amount of checking I do see the kernel of an article here, and so I would NOT like it to be deleted. I am worried that the article has you have remade it is the type of article which could get deleted. To avoid problems in my opinion this article needs to be stripped down enormously so that it is ONLY about Genobaud, and anything which secondary sources (not us) have said about his significance. Most of the sections in this article do not even mention Genobaud.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion, ifly6

Called forth from WT:CGR. I've not yet read the previous discussion but started with the article in its current state. First impressions are about style. The lede is far too long. MOS:LEDELENGTH. Restructuring is definitely necessary, with most of that material moved to the body. The outline of the article does not follow standard conventions; I am also rather sure that the headings are not consistent with MOS:SECTIONSTYLE.

As to content, there are vast areas that are entirely unsourced, with some sections using something akin to parenthetical citations without the brackets. Either way it should be avoided. Clearer actual citations with pinpoint chapters or page numbers are needed. Long explanations as to what the Crisis of the Third Century is should be omitted per MOS:SUMMARY. There is heavily reliance on primary sources – panegyrics and Zonaras – which is not consistent with policy on them. WP:PRIMARY. Those primary sources also seem to be improperly cited. Eg the Panegyrici Latini are customarily cited by title and chapter, not by editor name.

I've put tags at the top consistent with my opinion. I will read the previous discussion now. Ifly6 (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

All right. Fair enough. I had not finished the article and I knew it needed work. I'm not sure evrything you reference is true, but it is phrased professionally and therefore I will check it out. If there are issues I will bring them up. It seems to me you may be making points too fine, but I do not object to that. Addressing these issues properly can only make the article better. I'm still not happy with the content. But, the content to some degree depends on what is said in other articles on the Franks. I have not by any means settled that, so there is no point in getting this article the way we want it only to discover this is not the way we want it. So, I will tend to that as best I can first. We do have this record of your critique for general use at any time. When I do get started I may have to ask you what you mean, as some of the code references are not very specific and are subject to interpretation. I don't know if that is your case. I will have to see. Frankly I am surprised at the difference in your professionalism between here and Sicambri. I think you must have been seduced by the other editor's emotionalism. I think I might have been hard on you there, but then you were hard on me. Quit that and stick to your professionalism here and we shall probably get along a lot better, if that is your interest. The Sicambri article will need the same kind of going over but I don't want to start until we settle whether it is one article or two. Thank you for turning professional in this article. Later.Botteville (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)