Talk:Tacitean studies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Tacitean studies has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
Tacitean studies is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
The following users are actively contributing on this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: |
See:
- Talk:Tacitus
- User:Mirv/Tacitus
A remarkable feat was accomplished by Robert Graves: the major gap of text that had gone lost of the Annals regarded parts of the end of Tiberius' reign, the whole of Caligula's reign, and the major part of Claudius' reign (the remaining part of Tacitus' manuscript only took up again at this Emperor's death, for the transition to the reign of Nero).
Could someone who understands this horrible sentence please render it into something more comprehensible. Bastie 10:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- add a "filling in" after the colon, comma and a "which" after Annals. I think. Ask Francis Schonken. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
This article seems to rape the entire concept of NPOV when they use a ... let's say a less than flattering quote is used as an indirect "attack" to the US-led invasion of Iraq. I don't like it as much as you guys, but that can't be taken so openly. --Sprafa 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hyperbolic much? the facts are these:
- Tacitus wrote an excellent piece of rhetoric, in the voice of a Caledonian chieftain, in part (if not solely) as a condemnation of Roman imperialism.
- anti-war writers in the 21st century quoted the speech in order to condemn imperialism, or at least what they perceived as such.
- if you have any suggestions on how to improve the neutrality of the section without sacrificing these facts, I'm listening. maybe the section could take into account other theories of the intent behind the speech. perhaps the modern uses could be reported in a more dispassionate and less sympathetic fashion (I agree with the viewpoint, I wrote the section, and I may not be aware of a bias that is obvious to everyone else). the image probably isn't necessary. I don't know. try neutralizing it and we'll see where that goes. —Charles P._(Mirv) 07:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Baghdad image
The final image by the "21st century" section is incorrectly annotated "Baghdad in flames". The dark smoke plumes are from pits of burning oil set up ny the Iraqis in a ring around the center of the city, to obscure sight for bombing planes, not from buildings in flame. I removed the image and annotation, but that was reverted. Is there any justification for this revert? Rwendland 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
