Jump to content

Talk:Hadrian/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Barbarians

I've taken the phrase 'barbarians for the time being' out because it makes no sense. There is no barbarian 'lifestyle'. The Caledonians chose not to be Roman and the Romans defined them as barbarians. That's all there is to be said. Rcpaterson 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Antinous

Hi there. Under "Cultural Pursuits..." it says "Hadrian drew the whole Empire into his mourning, making Antinous the last new god of antiquity". I didn't change it in case I misunderstood something but what is written can't be what is meant. Many, many more men are deified in 'antiquity' including Emperor Hadrian himself as noted later in this very article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.245.2 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

born place

He was born in Italica in a place near the adriatic see , then very young he moved in spain with trajan when he was governor of spain...

What is the source for this statement? Italica is nowhere near the Adriatic. It also isn't identical with Seville, which the article currently has as his birthplace (quite erroneously, I would think). I repeat from 'Where was he born?' above - Italica was his family's home town, not necessarily his own birthplace. The best sources suggest he was born at Rome.Cenedi 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've rejigged the heading paragraph and the start of 'Early Life' to try and lay this matter to rest - ie that Hadrian was born in Rome, where his father, as a senator, resided most of the time - but I have no faith this will be the end of the matter!Cenedi 13:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays, Italica is part of the province of Seville. In the Roman period Italica and Hispalis (Seville) were different cities.

Antinous

I don't think we should assume that they were lovers, there is no concrete proof, and if they were it would have been known and in the open. Pederasty was quite well-known at the time and in practice, there was no need for Hadrian to hide it. A quick read through the pederasty section of Wiki will show anyone that their relation did not seem like an amorous one cause it does not fall within the usual rules. But the fact that he deified him is sort of suspicious as well. Antinous was considerd to be the most attractive male to have ever lived so who knows... MarcusAntoninus 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern scholarship has stopped pretending that they were not lovers. The scandal was not that they were, but that Hadrian wished to continue the relationship once Antinous reached the age of maturity (Birley 2-3, 158 184-185, 241) --Nantonos 09:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

  • Regarding the first requirement (It is well written) the article looks complained.
  • There are some problems with the 2nd requirement (It is well referenced), some sections and paragraphs are completely unreferenced:
    • "Securing power" section, 2nd paragraph;
    • "Hadrian and the military" section, 1st paragraph;
    • "Cultural pursuits and patronage" - almost completely unreferenced;
    • In "Hadrian's travels" section there is only one ref in 3 big paragraphs;
    • Prior to Hadrian's arrival on Great Britain there had been a major rebellion in Britannia, spanning roughly two years (119–121)...In many ways it represents Hadrian's will to improve and develop within the Empire, rather than waging wars and conquering. - an important paragraph without a ref;
this one now fixed --Nantonos 09:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Britannia" section - 1st paragraph;
    • Hadrian spent the final years of his life at Rome. In 134, he took an Imperial salutation for the end of the Jewish War (which was not actually concluded until the following year). In 136, he dedicated a new Temple of 'Venus and Rome' on the former site of Nero's Golden House. - really needs a ref;
    • "Death" section - completely unreferenced;
  • Regarding the third, fourth, fifth and sixth requirements (It is broad in its coverage / It is neutral / It is stable / Any images it contains are appropriate), the article looks compliant.

I'll check back in seven day and see if the article deserves the GA promotion. Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 12:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Second Roman-Jewish War

I added a section on the Second Roman-Jewish war and the role of Hadrian in it by combining the material already present with material from the Wikipedia site on the Roman-Jewish war, lightly edited to make it consistent. RFB —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First bearded emperor

We wasn't. That honour goes to Nero (54-68), many of whose images - on coins and in statuary - show him sporting a beard (of the 'chinstrap' variety). He too was something of a philhellene. I have edited accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.82.115 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vallum Hadriani

I'll add the original Latin name of the Hadrian's Wall: Vallum Hadriani. Fleabox (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Latin name of the wall is unknown (see the discussion on the Hadrian's Wall page). In any case, it's unlikely to have borne the builder's cognomen (Hadrianus), but his nomen gentilicium (Aelius), as this was the usual Roman naming practice for building projects (although there are a few exceptions).82.44.82.115 (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Edward Gibbon: "happiest era of human history"

In 1776, Edward Gibbon called Hadrian's epoch the "happiest era of human history". I found a good place where to insert this. Fleabox (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

- I am sorry, but I believe that it is not so. The Gibbon's famous quotation, in his chapter I, does not refer to Hadrian's reign concretly, but to the almost totality of the 2nd. century AD, exempting Commodus, be read here. I think you can anyway adapt it, or even to introduce the quote. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are totally right - thanks! What about this modification: In 1776, he stated that Hadrian's epoch was part of the "happiest era of human history". Fleabox (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

- Your welcome. Well, it would be much more exact, certainly. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

Why is the info about his personal life just mixed in with his career instead of having it's own section, like with most articles on famous people? I could not find his marriage, mention of why he had no children (one assumes, since the family tree indicates only an adopted "son" to secure the succession) and Antinous was written about under the heading "Cultural pursuits and patronage." For someone who is researching bisexual people in history, this article does not make that info very accessible, unlike many other articles. Sheela —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.219.250 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC) ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.219.250 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Family tree

The name PLOTINA is written in a wrong style. I tried to fix it but couldn't reach the desired effect. Could anyone please help? Thank you.--Broletto (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it's ok. Maybe it was only a matter of time?--Broletto (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent Hadrian / Antinous sex picture

I think this picture should be removed. This article is not a sex-specific article in the same way that Erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum is. I don't think this erotic picture belongs in this article any more than a picture of Henry VIII in bed with Anne Boleyn or George Washington doing it with Martha belongs on theirs. Mlouns 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm aware that Wikipedia is not censored, but per Wikipedia:Profanity, potentially offensive images should be used "if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate". I don't think this painting is important enough to the topic of Hadrian to justify its inclusion. I can see better grounds for including it on the Antinous article, since artistic portrayals are a much larger part of what makes him important than is the case for Hadrian, but I would still incline to omit it if it isn't considered notable by art historians. EALacey 19:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I intend to remove the picture in the next few days. If someone objects, please state why this particular painting is especially important to include in the article. Mlouns 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I notice it crept back in - removed, again. Shimgray | talk | 20:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Britannia section

This section is really inaccurate: the purpose of Hadrian's wall was not, as is popularly believed, to safeguard the empire against attacks from Caledonia. This can be readily seen by the existence of trading posts that allowed unhindered access through the wall, along with the settlements that sprang up around them (see the first episode of Simon Schama's A History of Britain). The true purpose of the wall was to define the Roman Empire's geographical limits, which had never been previously done. It was basically Hadrian's way of saying, "this is as far as we'll go", and marked a transition from centuries of progressive conquest to the beginning of the empire's decline.

Can someone with more specific knowledge on this update the article? I don't have the sources or experience to really do it justice. -- Hux 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it's most unsatisfactory. The section gives the impression that there had been no military activity in Caledonia prior to Hadrian's visit to Britannia, and that he abandoned the idea of "conquest" north of the Solway/Tyne isthmus in favour of building an impregnable barrier. Hadrian was reversing the misguided and unsustainable expansionist policies of previous emperors, retrenching within clearly defined borders, to best use the available military manpower.

Not only that, the section ties itself in knots. Firstly the wall was to be made of stone as there was "a lack of suitable wood in the area" (the largest forests in England are just north of the Wall, and it was even more heavily wooded in Hadrian's time), and then a substantial part was to be built of turf, as there was a lack of building stone! This ignores the fact that the turf wall and mile-castles had substantial wooden palisades on top, and that it was rebuilt in stone later!

It then goes on to suggest a lack of stone resulted in the narrowing of the wall in the eastern sector! Surprising then, that large 19th and 20th century quarries were dug, destroying whole sections of the Wall, and that the Roman architects were so dim as to plan a construction they couldn't complete with the materials available. Most of this section is conjecture, and poor conjecture at that. Rambler24 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace, redux

Just above is an argument saying he wasn't born in Rome. Earlier today -- further up, another editor points to a book which says he must have been born in Rome. The article needs to reflect the dispute, it can't state where he was born, only that there is uncertainty, the locations suggested, and, attributed, the arguments for and against them, without trying to come to a conclusion. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Augustun84 (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Antinous

Aside from the wall, Hadrian's relationship with Antinous is what he is best known for, both today and in ancient times. The cult of Antinous was one of the most popular ancient cults, with his bust a very common archeological find.[1] Googling Hadrian homosexual yields a staggering number hits, presumably because of this relationship. The issue certainly deserves a mention in the lede.
"Hispano" is the pre-Roman population in Spain. But here we don't mean that Hadrian was mixed race, but only that he came from Spain. "Spain" is just the anglicized form of Hispania, even if the borders are not quite the same. (After all, what country's borders have stayed the same over a 2,000 year period?) Kauffner (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Many books about Hadrian will mention the word homosexual, so a large number of hits isn't surprising, but 20,000 web hits, which is about what I saw when I clicked on your link, isn't staggering or proof of anything. If I do a search on Google books with the words Hadrian and emperor, I get about 449,000 (which may merit the word staggering). Replacing 'emperor' with 'homosexual' gives me about 4,710 results. That search on GScholar provides about 2,130 results, Hadrian and emperor about 23,000. The point being that far more books, journal articles, etc do not mention his homosexuality than do mention it. So, if your argument is that is what he is best known for, then I'd challenge your statement. I have found the statement "Hadrian is perhaps best known for his building legacy, especially in Athens, " which is certainly something he is well known for. So no, it doesn't belong in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure the 3rd paragraph in the lead belongs there either. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the lede currently about Hadrian's building projects in Athens. In fact, the lede is full of trivia, especially the third paragraph, like you said. We could take out that paragraph, add the Athens projects and the Bar Kochba revolt, as well as Antinous, and easily stay under 500 words. A published summary of Hadrian's life typically mentions Antinous -- and that's what the lede should do. See here, here, here and even an article entitled "Hadrian the gay emperor" for examples. There is also an enormous amount of writing on the Web about homosexuality that uses Hadrian as an object lesson, as least if the results of this Google search are any indication: homosexuality Hadrian Kauffner (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Stoic-Epicurean

What is this supposed to mean? Stoicism and Epicureanism were often opposing each other (on philosophy of nature, on ethics derived from it, etc.) Daizus 13:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

i had the exact same question. i guess it means a god-fearing atheist. second tidbit, what is the difference between a "Jewish persecution" and an "anti-Jewish persecution"? The Jackal God 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
They seem to be in opposition to one another...69.105.172.143 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this qualification can hardly be correct. Probably meant is a diluted Epicureanism, i.e. someone who loves life and the arts, etc. but who is not a follower of Epicurus, who himself led a sober life, and who adhered to atomism as explanation of the universe. But even calling him a Stoic seems like overdoing it: although he may have admired Epictetus, this not ncecessarily entails any adherence to Stoic philosophical views: possibly to some precepts for daily life. Probably here also a diluted Stoicism is meant, in the sense that Hadrian did not refrain from (sometimes) living the stern and sober life of a soldier when he was on campaign. (Marguerite Yourcenar makes him explicitly criticize the Stoics). Donjanssen (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"made love to a horse"??

This section perhaps needs some clarification

Another loser with no life thinking vandalism is clever. They never seem to realize that we can revert vandalism faster than they can write it, so it's pointless to try. Stan 16:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

the building work on hadrians wall started in 0122, not 0112, i found out in a reliable history book.

There is some useful material in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that might be incorporated into the article to fill that gap. You can find it here. /Nicke L 21:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That diagonal earlobe creases – a characteristic associated with coronary heart disease is practically medical urban legend. I'm not sure it fits here in wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.198.40 (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This understanding is now outdated and wrong. ("Having one small abnormality in facial features, such as an earlobe crease, is not uncommon, and is usually not associated with a serious medical condition." Medline Plus) Extramural —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

Whoever posted that was thinking of Caligula. Or it's just vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.234.234 (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Antinous, redux

As the previous section makes clear, Hadrian's relationship with Antinous attracted an enormous amount of attention, both in ancient and modern times. I hardly think that adding a few sentences to explain its context and significance constitutes WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK. Yourcenar's book is easily the best-known work on Hadrian and it has quite a reputation, as you can see from this review. There is no issue of using it as a source, but merely informing the reader that Yourcenar's view of Hadrian has been influential. Kauffner (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for Italica?

It seems that a "citation needed template" affects the fact of Italica location close to Sevilla (Spain). I think it is a so obvious and well-known fact as to render any citation unnecessary.--Auró (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

HADRIAN DIDN'T ACTUALLY BUILD THE WALL DID HE???

In the hadrians wall article it suggests that the wall was planned and the construction began before Hadrian ruled in that area as - iT is contradicting to say Hadrian built the wall - If you have proof that Hadrian actually built the wall please cite your quotation or display evidence. A suggestion would be to rephrase this statement... perhaps that "the wall was built during the ruling of Hadrian?"

This is nonsense: "the construction began before Hadrian ruled in that area" What does this mean? The wall was built during his reign, under his orders. He built it. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Bar Kokhba's revolt for the corresponding discussion. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sexuality

Deleted this entire section - it anachronistically describes Hadrian as making it clear he was 'gay', a category that didn't exist at the time, and its only source is a newspaper article in the Independent. There ought to be a section on Hadrian's sexuality, but one with proper scholarly refs and an understanding of the different sexualities of the ancient world. 82.31.67.51 (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. All that's needed is the Antinous section, which has been a long battle against the neo-Victorians who somehow think it's improper to suggest that H&A got it on. A "Sexuality" section can only contain half-baked psychologizing based on exiguous evidence: OR. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Era style

This article uses "BCE"/"CE" already. It would be preferred that you keep it this way, out of respect for the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty since they had no affiliation, or liking to Christianity. If you object, please provide a valid reason as to why. Lupus Bellator (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the article traditionally used the BC/AD convention until you changed it today. Your change was challenged and reverted per WP:ERA. The article should retain the established convention.Cúchullain t/c 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose changing era style, or removing era designation per Plotinus example at WP:ERA. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

according to Elizabeth Speller...assessment of Hadrian beyond "good" and "bad"

Elizabeth Speller, while an accomplished novelist, was certainly not the first to remark on the complex character of Hadrian that comes down to us from ancient works. The difficulty of categorizing Hadrian as a "good" or "bad" emperor, even by ancient biographical sources that often had a penchant for moralizing caricature, was remarked upon as far back as Gibbon. See Gibbon's Decline and Fall (Methuen ed. 1909, p. 83) "Hadrian was, by turns, an excellent prince, a ridiculous sophist, and a jealous tyrant." While I have nothing against Mrs. Speller, the appearance should not be given that that observation was her original creation. Having the article read "according to Elizabeth Speller.." does give the impression of originality. Seeing that Mrs. Speller's authority on the subject rests on her novel "Following Hadrain" which is itself somewhat of a derivative work (of Marguerite Yourcenar's "Memoirs of Hadrian", an altogether superior work), I am hesitant to award to Mrs. Speller the credit for the observation.

Unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I will change the article to something more reasonable towards all of the Hadrian scholarship that has come before Mrs. Speller's time.

There are a number of other references to Speller. Surely an encyclopedia can cite better sources than a novel, i.e. a fictional account? --Nantonos 09:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this person listed as a source along with page numbers but no reference to what those page numbers refer to. Someone's name and a page number with no work to tie the number to, hardly qualifies as a source. (though looking at her biography, it seems that she is not qualified to be a source anyway.) 98.121.92.169 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"friend" of Antinous?

It seems well known that these men were lovers. The extreme display of grief by Hadrian following the death of Antinous speaks of a strong emotional connection. Taking a young man as a lover is consistent with the Hellene culture Hadrian was a fan of. Why is it not explicitly stated that these men were lovers when there is so much evidence for this? Also Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations disapproves of Hadrians pedophilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computatioi (talk • contribs) 10:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"When there is so much evidence for this"? you're drawing such conclusions based on him being upset due to his death? That's hardly 'evidence' to support anything let alone this. I was pretty distraught when my hamster died when i was little. I buried him and made a little hamster gravestone, does that make us lovers? please. you're pushing an agenda. keep it to yourself or source it with irrefutable evidence.69.105.172.143 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The comparison between your reaction to the death of your hamster and Hadrian's reaction to Antinous's is so ridiculous it doesn’t really deserve comment, but nevertheless I will. The whole Roman world was put in a state of mourning and vast numbers of statues were erected at public expense. Antinous was a nobody, a greek boy from Bithnya and the level of grief displayed by Hadrian was immoderate and out of character for a man of such undoubted intellect as he. There was clearly something more than a conventional friendship going on. You are right of course that irrefutable proof is lacking but it is also true to say that there is no proof the relationship wasn't homosexual either. The evidence would seem to point towards bi/homosexuality however, especially given the nature of Roman morality. Roman views on bi/homosexuality were completely at odds with those of later times. It was a pre-christian world. What was morally unacceptable to the Romans, as all those who know the slightest bit about Roman history know, was for a man to be the submissive partner in a relationship (i.e. the 'receiver'). The gender of a man's sexual partners was irrelevant as long he was sexually dominant. Hence a lack of comment in the ancient sources to something which was not socially unacceptable is not unsurprising (how many mistresses of kings and Emperors are unrecorded in history). What was special, however, was Hadrian's reaction to Antinous' death. Finally, to suggest that an agenda is being pushed is a perversion of scholarship. What possible agenda could be pursued by suggesting Hadrian was homosexual? The allegation suggests that you have an agenda in ensuring that Hadrian not be seen as homosexual or bisexual. It is probable that Hadrian was at least bisexual, although debate on his relationship with Antinous is welcome and necessary to scholarship. It should have its own section in the article as does Alexander the Great's relationship with his alleged lover Hephaestion (also a man!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.128.11 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hadrian's grief was modeled that of Achilles when Patroclus died, as well as on the Alexander/Hephaestion relationship. That is to say, there were specific things you were supposed to do in Greek culture when your catamite died, so this was Hadrian's opportunity to show how Greek-friendly he was. Hadrian obviously knew how well this sort of drama played in the Greek-speaking world, so well, in fact, that there is a good chance Hadrian offed Antinous to have it play out. Kauffner (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
There is also the possibility that he might have considered adopting Antinous, which was a common thing for emperors to do. Hadrian himself was an adoptive son of Trajan and he did after all have two other adoptive sons. Considering that Hadrian was a staunch Philhellene this would make sense. Maybe this possibility could be mentioned if this view is not considered to be original research... OTOH, Historia Augusta which seems to be the main source for the claim of something else between them has some credibility issues, i.e. it's hard to know what's gossip and what's not... Abvgd (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Hadrian would not have adopted Antinous as his son. It would have been politically unthinkable, however Philhellenic he was. While adoption was indeed a common act by Emperors (Hadrian actually adopted two sons: Lucius Ceionius Commodus and Antoninus Pius), it was always done to signify an heir to the position of princips (or the throne if you prefer to speak plainly). Antinous was a nobody. He never held any office, never served in the legion and there is no evidence that he did anything but act as a companion to Hadrian. Both of the men adopted by Hadrian, the first predeceased Hadrian thus necessitating the adoption of Antoninus Pius, held consular rank. Antinous' only qualification was his not inconsiderable beauty. For Hadrian to have adopted him as his son would have looked to the Roman establishment as though his reason had been overtaken by lust, something Romans would have seen as an intolerable weakness in a princeps. Even had the relationship been entirely plutonic, which it almost certainly was not, it was still popular gossip that they were lovers. Worse than that he would not only have been seen as a lust blinded fool but incestuous father! The most plausible explanation for Hadrian and Antinous' bond was that it was founded upon on the Greek practice of pederasty which then continued into Antinous' adult life and developed into a full homosexual relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.89.191 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
We can only use what sources say - we can use Historia Augusta but should include academic commentary, not just the Historia. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is he still listed as his lover when it is pure speculation, and there is no credible resource to back it up?24.113.171.102 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Where was he born?

Is it Italica or Rome?

Italica was the birthplace of the Roman Emperors Trajan and Hadrian
Hadrian was born in Rome to a well-established family which had originated in Picenum in Italy and had subsequently settled in Italica, Hispania Baetica (originally Hispania Ulterior).

--hello,gadren 00:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Italica was Hadrian's patria, ie his family's home town, and some late Roman historians assumed that to be his birthplace, but he himself was born in Rome as is explicitly stated in the Historia Augusta, here almost universally considerd to be reproducing a good late 2nd or early 3rd century source.Cenedi

Birley's biography on Hadrian states that he was born in Flavian Rome. See also the Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd Edition, Vol XI: The Imperial Peace, p. 132.Neoaeolian

As of today we have his birthplace changed back to Spain, specifically Seville. On what grounds? Cenedi 10:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Will people please read the first paragraph of Anthony R. Birley's magisterial new biography of Hadrian, which explains that he had to have been born in Rome? His father was a senator, and senators customarily resided in Rome unless appointed as governors elsewhere. Moreover, his father was probably a praetor at the time of Hadrian's birth, another reason why the family would have to have been in Rome. http://www.amazon.com/Hadrian-Restless-Emperor-Imperial-Biographies/dp/0415228123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentor2 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are far more sources that name Hispania as Hadrian's birthplace than not. Historian Alicia M. Canto "argues that only one ancient source gives Hadrian's birth as Rome (SHA, Vita Hadr 2,4, probably interpolated), opposite to 25 ancient authors who affirm that he was born in Italica. Among these ancient sources is included his own imperial horoscope, which remained in the famous Antigonus of Nicaea's collection (end of the 2nd. century)."

This is also backed by historian F.H. Cramer: "...Hadrian – whose horoscope is absolutely certain – surely was born in southern Spain... (in) SHA, Hadrian, 2, 4, the birth was erroneously assigned to Rome instead of Italica, the actual birth-place of Hadrian..."

Also, it's often claimed that his family is from Picenum, which is misleading because it is well known that his family lived in Hispania for several centuries. He had some Italian ancestry but very little of this ancestry can be proven outside of vague mentions of distant ancestors from Picenum who came to Spain several centuries before his birth. Also, His wife, sister, parents and grandparents are all known to be born and raised in Hispania, they were not ethnically Roman. Aesthetics101 (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Bar Kochba War and modern historiography.

I have found resistence when introducing present-day historians' accounts of the Bar Kochba War, specially in the work of Schlomo Sand, who argues about what he sees as the unhistorical character of the general Jewish exile on the wake of the war, which he takes, among other things, as a by-product of Late Antique Christian historiography (or "Christian mythology"). I am fully aware of the politically charged character of Sand's work and his thesis, however, I have to mention that his views exist and are part of the existing academic views on the war - or not? Abhorrent as the Sand's thesis may appear, he is a bona fide scholar with a teaching post in an Israeli universityCerme (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

N.B. What I have attempted in the biographies of both Trajan & Hadrian was, to the full extent of my limited knowledge, to update the historiography used, as to me seems a problem with many of the Roman Imperial biographies on the wiki. That's why I have introduced living authors such as Paul Veyne and Sand as sources into the biograph of Hadrian. As all history is, to a certain measure, present history.... Cerme (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy calls out for "reliable sources," but Sand is a historical revisionist who seeks to reinterpret orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event, in this case Hadrian's war with the Jews. If, as you claim, it was somehow connected to Jesus's crucifixion, then you have made null and void the Roman governor's call for assistance against the war of independence waged by Bar-Kokhba, which, by all accounts, is the official reason for Hadrian's war against Judea.Davidbena (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you mean. Only the Late Antique Christian writers were not dealing with actual historical causes such as stating that the Roman governor asked for help because the Jews rebelled, they were pointing to what they saw as Jesus' prophecy fulfilled. But then, I have, en lieu of the book by Sand, found a, in my view, far less controversial source that simply states that the actual consequences of the war and its precise place in Hadrian's religious policies are still a matter for controversy. What I'm trying to convey it's simply that a controversy exists and I'm not trying to solve it - something Wikipedia explicitly forbids Cerme (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

homosexuality

shouldn't there be a brief mentioning of hadrian's homosexuality, like his relationship with antinous?

Yes, of course, including the death of Antinous - probably sacrificial - in the Nile, and more generally, how Hadrian was so far up the Greeks he he invented a new religion for him, building temples to Antinous across the empire. This page on Hadrian is pathetic, it misses out just about everything of importance, and misrepresents him seriously. Hadrian instigated the Third Jewish-Roman war and holocaust against the Jews: he is comparable to Adolf Hitler - mad, bad and dangerous to know. Now, who here is promoting him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extramural (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Gimme a break buddy, since when was a Roman emperor nice to ANYBODY?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually if we are going to give Hadrian a label for his sexual orientation it would be bisexual, not gay or homosexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.234.234 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hadrian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hadrian/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 14:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi, nice to meet you Cerme. I'll take up this review, reviewing against the 6 good article criteria (WP:GA?). Firstly, I'd like to say... what an article! It's clear you've put a lot of careful work into this article and having read it in depth now twice I'd say it's definitely of good article quality in my mind. That said I will take another few days to read carefully again, check for copyright violation, check the images and so forth. I am sorry you've had to wait so long but many thanks for your edits to this article on Wikipedia.

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. At first glance - yes. Will thoroughly work through article in 2-3 days
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Eminently - multitude of sources provided. Will verify segments of article to ensure factual integrity. One or two areas lacking citations - I'll note any that are not common sense will
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes, and in a very easy to read manner
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Yes
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

I will update this within 2-3 days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have started to thoroughly go through the article.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

General comments

Article is stable. Article is neutral.

Prose in general. I must admit I find this article quite hard to read. To improve the readability, I suggest --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Add "AD" or "CE" to quantify dates
  • Provide if possible dates for some major events, because this can help the reader form a timeline.
  • For many sentences, shift the emphasis to what happened to Hadrian (ie. "Hadrian became the legate in AD 98, after promotion by Trajan") rather than, for example, "Trajan promoted Hadrian, who became legate in AD 98"
  • Use the english equivalent terms where possible for roman positions or places, or provide the modern equivalents where possible
  • Remove conjunctions such as "However", "Also" and so on unless really necessary
  • Provide some context around important characters and events - eg "emperor Nerva", "the legion XXX"

At the moment, Hadrian's lifelong achievements are covered alongside almost a timeline of his reign. This makes it confusing because we are constantly alternating between achievements year by year, to suddenly commentary on his reign as a whole. Because Hadrian is covered in such depth, and the article is quite long, it's hard to take all that information in a useful way without feeling overwhelmed or confused. What do you think about separating this into two sections - such as "Reign" and "Achievements" or "Legacy" or "Relationships". I feel such a separation would go a long way to improving the prose and readability of the article.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact I do feel a "Relationships" section would be extremely useful - covering 3-4 major relationships including "Trajan", "Senate", "Antonius". The information could be moved from other sections, making both the timeline clearer and an idea of his major relationships clearer too.

I will also go through the prose section by section below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to your comments, Cerme. I'm happy to discuss what I've said and don't intend for it to be prescriptive. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Addit: My goodness, looks like you're involved heavily in two lengthy GA reviews as it stands. I'm happy to put this on hold for 2-3 weeks while you attend to those. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Close review of text

Sources

  • Suggest "We lack a continuous account of the political history of Hadrian's reign, as is the case with his predecessor, Trajan", to retain focus on Hadrian
  • What we have in the way of such an account," - "What we have is..." shorter
  • "As in the case of Trajan, using epigraphical, numismatic, archaeological and other non-literary sources is absolutely necessary in tracing a detailed historical account." - source lacking
  • "Hadrian's biography is generally considered to be relatively free of fictional additions" - his official biography? at odds with the sentence beforehand

Early life

  • "Although it was an accepted part of Hadrian's personal history that he was born in Spain, " - do you mean, in Roman times? Otherwise based on the first paragraph I'd shorten this to "Despite this,"
  • "from a well-established Roman family with centuries-old roots in Italica, Hispania Baetica (the republican Hispania Ulterior), near the present-day location of Seville, Spain." - citation
  • "His paternal great-grandmother is of unknown origin, which means that the exact amount of his paternal ancestry that can actually be linked to Italy (outside of nonspecific claims of forebears from Picenum from centuries earlier) is ultimately unknown." - citation
  • Slight change made to prose - ancestry in paragraph 1, moved father to paragraph 2
  • "Hadrian was schooled in various subjects particular to young aristocrats of the day, and was so fond of learning Greek literature that he was nicknamed Graeculus ("Greekling")." - citation
  • Readability - hard to follow italic place names, a map adjoining this would be very useful.
  • "Hadrian visited Italica when (or never left it until) he was 14 years old" - years are used mostly for chronology - I suggest "14 years old (76 AD)"

Public service

  • Suggest link "cursus"
  • "Hadrian's first military service was as a tribune of the Legio II Adiutrix. Exceptionally" - (1) would be useful to have a date to put this in perspective. (2) suggest reword "Legio II Adiutrix" to point out that it's a roman legion
  • "his adoption by Nerva" - suggest add "emperor Nerva" for context
  • "thorough military career[17]" his career is just beginning? Suggest qualify this
  • "and gave Hadrian an advantage" - an advantage to do what? I suggest state this directly
  • "From then on he began to be surrounded by stories about omens and portents that supposedly announced his future imperial condition" - stories in the populace? in the histories? suggest clarify
  • I don't know what this sentence means "It is also noteworthy, however, that Trajan did not make Hadrian a Patrician, so as to allow him to become consul earlier, without having to hold the office of tribune.[23]" so I suggest rewrite to "Trajan, to allow Hadrian to become consul earlier, did not make Hadrian a Patrician, an unusual and noteworthy choice."
  • "During the First Dacian War" no date, so it's hard to mentally picture a timecourse
  • "Therefore, if Hadrian had received the signal honour of assuming the tribunate of the plebs a year earlier than was customary, at the same time he departed early from both Dacian campaigns – " again, not sure what is meant here
  • "It was at this time" - I suggest state the time, and it's unclear - do you mean when he was tribune or at the time of the second Dacian campaign?
  • "Also, he counted on..." I suggest for clarity remove "Also" in this and the succeeding sentence
  • "His career before becoming emperor, as attested epigraphically in the Athens inscription, follows:" - I suggest this is put in a table beside the text, it would ake the text much easier to follow
  • "Hadrian was involved in the wars against the Dacians (as legate of the V Macedonica and reputedly won awards from Trajan for his successes. Hadrian's military skill is not well-attested due to a lack of military action during his reign; however, his keen interest in, and knowledge of, the army and his demonstrated skill of leadership show possible strategic talent." - needs a citation, and doesn't follow from the text beforehand
  • I suggest a subheading "Death of Trajan" following the above.

Emperor

Securing power

  • "Therefore, Hadrian had to act on his own to secure his newly won position." - needs citation, and at odds with the fact that Attianus' helps him.
  • Suggest link "Jewish revolt that had broken out under Trajan" to the respective article

To be continued as nominator begins to respond to concerns above... --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

LT910001 and Cerme, where does this review stand? It has been more than 9 days since the last comment on the review page, and approximately the same amount of time since the last non-IP edit to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

My goodness, looks like you're involved heavily in two lengthy GA reviews as it stands. I'm happy to put this on hold for 2-3 weeks while you attend to those. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize- I missed that. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Not to worry. Unfortunately, good article nominees can languish for months before a review, and then all of a sudden start getting reviewed. It seems unfair for poor Cerme to deal with 3 quite large reviews simultaneously, so I've put this on hold until they are freed up. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
LT910001 and Cerme, it has now been just beyond 3 weeks since LT910001 said that he would give the article 2-3 weeks as a result of Cerme being busy with other reviews. However, it appears that those reviews are over, as Cerme has made no edits since April 10. Therefore, can something be done to ensure that this review is acted upon? Display name 99 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Display name 99, you make a good point. I'm sorry to hear that Cerme hasn't made any edits and will conclude the review below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

Many thanks to Cerme and other editors who have put a lot of effort into improving this article. That said, it's not yet ready to be called a "good article" as I have described below. Something that would make a big difference to the article as I have said is separating legacy issues from a timeline of Hadrian's rule. The prose also needs a thorough clean-up, and additional references are needed before this article becomes a good article. Please don't feel disheartened, this article about a fascinating and impactful man may take some time to improve, but I look forward to seeing it renominated in 6-12 months :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm now just far too busy to work in the article. I understand the GA nomination cannot remain open for ever. When I'm free, I will begin tackling Hadrian and then Trajan later. Cerme (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not to worry. There is no deadline :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hadrian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hadrian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hadrian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Article organisation and structure

I've been trying to deal with some of the problems pointed out by others, in the GA assessments above. The article has major problems in organisation; in effect, it's two articles, one of which says much the same as the other but within a different format; both seem over-detailed. In effect, it's probably more than twice as long as it could or should be; it's trying to do and say too much, and that makes for very hard reading. With most articles of this size, materials can be hived off into other articles, or provide a basis for new articles -- in this case, possibly not. An account of Hadrian's travels would be core to any article on him; and it's impossible to write such an account without reference to the what, why, who and when. But we also have several very long and detailed analytic, thematic sections; on cultural pursuits, the military etc., which seem to function (either by design or a quirk of the article's development) as preambles and postscripts to the travels; despite which, the travels offer almost exactly the same information. The article is not at all incomplete; much heavy lifting has been done by others; their dedication is admirable but the material needs quite drastic reorganisation. I'm inclined to do away with the thematic approach, and rewrite using a strict chronology; but I've a hunch that this will generate an entirely different set of problems. Any suggestions? Haploidavey (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I've lately made two small corrections in the article, one establishing the relationship between Hadrian and Licinius Sura, the other offering a requested source with commentary. I would ask Haploidavey to make the final decision about whether the reorganization of the article is completed or not in terms of an hypothetical GA status, and (humbly) ask him to think about trying a similar effort on Trajan Cerme (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cerme; sorry for the delayed response. Your addition of backgound on L. Sura helps immensely. This article still needs a basic restructuring; I don't think it's anywhere near ready for GA review, for reasons outlined above. I'm still inclined to deal with the material in strict chronological order, sources permitting; that might well involve reduction of the "Travels" to a series of bare outlines; an itinerary, more or less. I'll get back to you on Trajan (easier to deal with than his successor, in some respects) though probably not very soon... seasonal demands, and all that. Haploidavey (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Just an example of what I mean: the section on the bar Kokhba revolt is too long (because it's overdetailed, and attempts too much)> It might be better placed within the "Military" section, in strictly summary form. It should not be covered twice, either in this article or others. Nothing in the article should be covered twice. Yes? No? Maybe? Haploidavey (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Apropos of the above, and to help reduce the burden on some other sections (particularly the Travels) I plan to break out almost all content related to religion (including policies on Jews and Judaism, Imperial cult, Antinous, Christianity, etc.,) and place into a section on Religious policies. That should at least help to give a more reader-friendly, managable account. Haploidavey (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Length and readable prose

Just a quick, crude spot-check FYI. Current readable prose is currently 73,463 bytes; if we include citations and notes, it's 136,863 bytes. That's long, but now includes some material not previously covered. Appraisals (Personality, or what have you) need coverage. Some sections and simple statements of fact are probably over-sourced. Nowhere near ready for formal reassessment. Haploidavey (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Undue or dubious interpretations

In Hadrian#Arranging the succession, we have the following sourced material (sentences are consecutive - I've separated them for convenience);

  • In his Meditations, written during his reign as emperor, Marcus Aurelius lists those to whom he owes a debt of gratitude; Hadrian is conspicuously absent. [Frank McLynn,Marcus Aurelius: A Life. New York: Da Capo, 2010, ISBN 978-0-306-81916-2, p. 42]
  • Marcus' sympathies would have lain with the conservative, "serious", Roman outlook of Antoninus, not Hadrian's more open, "lewd", "Hellenic" outlook – including Hadrian's almost exclusive homosexuality. [Robert H. Allen, The Classical Origins of Modern Homophobia, Jefferson: Mcfarland, 2006, ISBN 978-0-7864-2349-1, p. 122. John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. University of Chicago Press: 2009, ISBN 0-226-06711-4, p. 85]

I'm not sure what to make of this; I don't think it's needed. The first (citing McLynn) is straightforward; Marcus doesn't include Hadrian in his list of "positive influences"; he doesn't include Augustus either. Or his tutor Herodes Atticus. So why the pointed conclusion? The second sentence reads to me like a whole baggage of speculation. Most secondary sources accept - more or less - Cassius Dio's assertion (missing from the article, as far as I can tell) that Hadrian, despite his very notable and undeniable successes, was "loathed by the people" for his executions of leading senators at the beginning and end of his reign. These notorious killings, along with his hyperactivity, emotional outbursts and paranoia, would hardly commend him to Marcus, or any emperor with aspirations to a Stoic lifestyle. Thoughts? Is this what's sometimes known as a WP:COATRACK? Haploidavey (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the second quote is speculative and well beyond what we would call a reasonable guess; but then Allen & Boswell are gender historians and therefore wont to speculate about how the perceptions of people in high places changed commonly-held views on homosexuality (Severus and Caracalla, according to Veyne, were already actively "gay-unfriendly"). The first sentence, however, is somewhat different. Marcus' political agenda differed widely from that of his adoptive grandfather, who was, nevertheless, the founder of the Antonine dynasty proper. What we have here is something like Augustus' embarrassment with Caesar's policies - but then Augustus acknowledged his debt to Caesar, even if only in passing. Marcus, however - who as an Stoic should be able to appreciate the necessity of Hadrian's role in his fortunes - took a step further in terms of deliberate rejection. Therefore the importance of Marcus'silence. Cerme (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Cerme. That's food for thought. I plan to include Dio's summation (as in my commentary above) then see how it reads; you evidently know the material much better than I; but while the first sentence seems quite pertinent, the second is less so; I'm not convinced that either one belongs here, unless in a section on ancient and modern reception. Haploidavey (talk)
Cerme, could you expand a little further on this with sources? Here would be fine, though under the "Appraisals" subheading would be better. What you've so lucidly expressed above is tantalising, and entirely relevant to appraisals of H's personality and reign. Haploidavey (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Article organisation and structure

I've been trying to deal with some of the problems pointed out by others, in the GA assessments above. The article has major problems in organisation; in effect, it's two articles, one of which says much the same as the other but within a different format; both seem over-detailed. In effect, it's probably more than twice as long as it could or should be; it's trying to do and say too much, and that makes for very hard reading. With most articles of this size, materials can be hived off into other articles, or provide a basis for new articles -- in this case, possibly not. An account of Hadrian's travels would be core to any article on him; and it's impossible to write such an account without reference to the what, why, who and when. But we also have several very long and detailed analytic, thematic sections; on cultural pursuits, the military etc., which seem to function (either by design or a quirk of the article's development) as preambles and postscripts to the travels; despite which, the travels offer almost exactly the same information. The article is not at all incomplete; much heavy lifting has been done by others; their dedication is admirable but the material needs quite drastic reorganisation. I'm inclined to do away with the thematic approach, and rewrite using a strict chronology; but I've a hunch that this will generate an entirely different set of problems. Any suggestions? Haploidavey (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I've lately made two small corrections in the article, one establishing the relationship between Hadrian and Licinius Sura, the other offering a requested source with commentary. I would ask Haploidavey to make the final decision about whether the reorganization of the article is completed or not in terms of an hypothetical GA status, and (humbly) ask him to think about trying a similar effort on Trajan Cerme (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cerme; sorry for the delayed response. Your addition of backgound on L. Sura helps immensely. This article still needs a basic restructuring; I don't think it's anywhere near ready for GA review, for reasons outlined above. I'm still inclined to deal with the material in strict chronological order, sources permitting; that might well involve reduction of the "Travels" to a series of bare outlines; an itinerary, more or less. I'll get back to you on Trajan (easier to deal with than his successor, in some respects) though probably not very soon... seasonal demands, and all that. Haploidavey (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Just an example of what I mean: the section on the bar Kokhba revolt is too long (because it's overdetailed, and attempts too much)> It might be better placed within the "Military" section, in strictly summary form. It should not be covered twice, either in this article or others. Nothing in the article should be covered twice. Yes? No? Maybe? Haploidavey (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Apropos of the above, and to help reduce the burden on some other sections (particularly the Travels) I plan to break out almost all content related to religion (including policies on Jews and Judaism, Imperial cult, Antinous, Christianity, etc.,) and place into a section on Religious policies. That should at least help to give a more reader-friendly, managable account. Haploidavey (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Length and readable prose

Just a quick, crude spot-check FYI. Current readable prose is currently 73,463 bytes; if we include citations and notes, it's 136,863 bytes. That's long, but now includes some material not previously covered. Appraisals (Personality, or what have you) need coverage. Some sections and simple statements of fact are probably over-sourced. Nowhere near ready for formal reassessment. Haploidavey (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hadrian/Archive_1&oldid=1136783100"