Talk:Tiberius Gracchus
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
![]() | Tiberius Gracchus was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 12, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Gracchan cippi
[edit]@T8612 and Avilich: Are you aware of any images on Wikimedia Commons depicting the Gracchan cippi? I took a look for myself but couldn't find anything. Maybe I'm putting in the wrong search keywords? Ifly6 (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- There aren't any, for sure Avilich (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any picture. T8612 (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiberius Gracchus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 16:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I can have a look at this one. Will do a first read today, and aim to post at least a few comments. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've done a copyedit, and posted a few comments (mostly general) below. I've yet to go through and pick out detailed things, but I'm conscious that there's already a lot for you to get on with here. I'd suggest that image licensing and sourcing should wait until the text is more final. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- In this read-through, I've grouped mission-critical matters at the top; more advisory stuff below. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Lots below, so to summarise state of play: the main issues at the moment is quotation and close paraphrase (see here). This is a big job, and potentially runs the risk of walking over a floor we're trying to mop: I propose that the next steps look something like this:
- In this read-through, I've grouped mission-critical matters at the top; more advisory stuff below. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- 1. Edit for quotation: those where the exact wording is important to the article need to be attributed in-text; those where it isn't need to be paraphrased.
- 2. CLOP/sourcing check: this obviously needs to wait until the necessary quotations are converted into (non-close) paraphrases.
- 3. Everything else, particularly criterion 1a. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- As of yesterday I've rewritten a number of sections and removed a series of quotes. Ifly6 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Good job on sorting the quotations, and thank you for doing so as quickly as you have. I'll do some CLOP checks and then, assuming all's well, we can move back to c.2. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've now been able to go through most of the Tribunate section (not the first subsection), so far checking the references to Roselaar, Beard, Lintott and von Ungern-Sternberg. I'm afraid I have serious concerns here: well over half of my checks are coming back with some concern, either WP:TSI (where the source does not appear to support the material claimed) or WP:CLOP (where the words or phrasing of the source has been adapted so closely as to constitute plagiarism, even with citation. I can't check every source in this article, but I also can't in good faith vouch that the use of those sources is likely to be free of the same errors. I've catalogued a fairly long list of 'hits' that I've spotted below, and moved all non-sourcing issues to a collapse template. I'm sure that these issues are fixable, but it's a big task and I don't have the resources to be able to sign off when it's finally done. The article has improved a huge amount over the last few days, and I'm sure it will continue to do so and become a GA before lnog.
- Good job on sorting the quotations, and thank you for doing so as quickly as you have. I'll do some CLOP checks and then, assuming all's well, we can move back to c.2. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- As of yesterday I've rewritten a number of sections and removed a series of quotes. Ifly6 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Resolved matters
|
---|
General[edit]
Military career[edit]
Tribunate[edit]
CLOP[edit]
|
All non-sourcing matters (mostly c1)
|
---|
1b: MOS compliance[edit]Note: as above, this isn't a total MOS screen, only for the pages mandated by GA (MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WORDSTOWATCH, MOS:FICTION and MOS:EMBED
4. NPOV[edit]Note: this is largely going to consist of cases where strong statements of opinion or interpretation are couched as if factual. Overall, the article is generally balanced; this isn't a hagiography or a hit piece, despite its possibly-controversial subject.
5a: Image review[edit]Licensing quibbles below. Impressive work on the maps, in particular.
Advisory[edit]General[edit]
Lead[edit]
Military career[edit]
Roman land in the second century[edit]
Lex agraria[edit]
|
GA Criteria
[edit]2c/2d: Source checks
[edit]I'm afraid I've got a few concerns here, particularly over WP:CLOP; I'm seeing quite a lot of it in the sources I can verify, and the large sections entirely reliant on single sources that I can't (particularly Roselaar) make me worry that there might be more. I won't be able to fully complete this tonight, I'm afraid, but I'd suggest a general look-over to ensure that the phrasing and distinctive language of sources has not been copied in unquoted text.
- Some of my concern in writing this was largely reversion by people who only read Appian and Plutarch. I do see your points on this though; many of the quoted portions can be safely removed and other areas may have been too closely phrased. I'll take a look at this. Ifly6 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Spot-checks
[edit]As I can't access these sources myself, could you please provide the quoted material to support the following:
At the time of Tiberius' tribunate in the late 130s BC, there were a number of economic issues before the Roman people: wage labour was scarce due to a dearth of public building, grain prices were likely high due to the ongoing slave rebellion in Sicily, population growth meant there were more mouths to feed, and declining willingness to serve on long army campaigns had increased migration to the cities
(cited Roselaar 2010, p223)
- I just confirmed that it is present. I don't think I can quote for you the entire page, which touches on these points in turn; my sentence merely summarises it. Ifly6 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine; simply quoting a sentence or so for each point will do. There's no expectation that citations will refer to a continuous passage of text. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I just confirmed that it is present. I don't think I can quote for you the entire page, which touches on these points in turn; my sentence merely summarises it. Ifly6 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Both men, being tribunes, represented the people writ large. Octavius insisted on maintaining his veto in defiance of the clearly expressed views of his constituents; Tiberius' response was to invent a novel legal justification for his violent deposition
(cited Flower 2010, p. 84)
- It was in the old version of the article, quoted below. "[depose] and [manhandle] an elected tribune of the plebs" in a "similarly unprecedented breach of political behaviour". I call it a "novel legal justification" because the following sentence says "unconstitutional behaviour of the other (Gracchus)". Ifly6 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Tiberius' response was to invent a novel legal justification for his violent deposition (article) isn't fully supported by
unconstitutional behaviour of the other (Gracchus)
(source): Gracchus could have openly been acting in defiance of the constitution. Does Flower talk about his justifications, and their novel nature? Similarly, I'd like a citation forBoth men, being tribunes, represented the people writ large
: in particular, 'the people writ large' is not a straightforward inference from the title tribunus plebis, so needs a source. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)- The representation of the people is in the previous page of Flower. See also note 10 thereat. I altered the citation to
|pp=83–84
. A novel legal justification is unconstitutional behaviour. They mean the same thing. I changed to "unconstitutional" and added a citation explaining that. Ifly6 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)- Sorry, I may have been unclear: could you please quote the text and/or note from Flower? To be clear; this is a WP:VERIFIABILITY check: I'm asking you to verify (prove) that the source text actually does contain what the article asserts (via citation) that it does. I'm happy with the change on unconstitutionally. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you can complain about not-entirely-close paraphrasing of single sentences in the article and then demand that I actually infringe on extensive paragraphs for verifiability. Wikipedia's copyright obligations do not end in the Talk namespace. You seem to have access to the source; I recommend checking it. If that isn't possible, I can only tell you that I assess that the sources validate the article claims. Ifly6 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Spot-checks are a standard part of reviews at all levels, including asking for quotations. To pass this as a GA, I need to be able to affirm that the citations are verifiable (see WP:GANOT, which asks reviewers to
[check] at least a substantial proportion of sources to make sure that they actually support the statements they're purported to support. (Sources should not be "accepted in good faith": for example, nominators may themselves have left material added by prior editors unchecked.)
- The WP:NFC issue isn't that we should never quote non-free sources, it's that we should only do so when there's a good reason to; verifying the content of a source unmistakeably falls into that category.
- Again, I'm only asking for enough material to demonstrate that Flower does, somewhere in the page(s) cited, say that tribunes represented the people writ large. That should be about a sentence; if you'd need to quote more material to communicate the point, it almost certainly isn't
present explicitly in the source
as required by WP:VERIFIABILITY. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)- I read the instructions. The instructions do not say you have to check literally every statement made like in an FA. That said, because that is more specific, I can provide you the specific sentence for that specific claim:
The initial political breach, therefore, came between two fellow tribunes of the plebs, elected together to represent the interests and views of the plebeians.
It's at the end of page 83. Ifly6 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)- Thank you for that. Could you change "people writ large" to "plebeians" or similar? After all, plebeians explicitly includes at least a big chunk of the people (the patricians and senators). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- If your objection is to people writ large vs literally everyone, the chunk of people who are not plebeians is so minuscule it doesn't detract from "people writ large". Estimates of the total number of equestrians, who are still technically plebs, in the late republic are on the order of five to ten thousand in an Italy of around two to four million free, ie non-slave, people (the sub-1pc) – Davenport Roman Equestrian order (2019) p 112 – the senators are an even smaller subset thereof and there are only 14 families of patricians. Even if you assume that each family has something ridiculous like 30 members each, that is still only 420. Ifly6 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Without a source saying that "the plebeians" are functionally equivalent to the whole people, I'm afraid that's WP:OR. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- First, OR doesn't talk about this.
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist... Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
The claim I made is not OR. - Second, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue#Citing everything. This is not a controversial statement that is likely to be challenged; that the plebs are the overwhelming majority (99.9pc) is common knowledge in the same way it is common knowledge that people who are not MPs are the overwhelming majority. Ifly6 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- First, OR doesn't talk about this.
- Without a source saying that "the plebeians" are functionally equivalent to the whole people, I'm afraid that's WP:OR. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- If your objection is to people writ large vs literally everyone, the chunk of people who are not plebeians is so minuscule it doesn't detract from "people writ large". Estimates of the total number of equestrians, who are still technically plebs, in the late republic are on the order of five to ten thousand in an Italy of around two to four million free, ie non-slave, people (the sub-1pc) – Davenport Roman Equestrian order (2019) p 112 – the senators are an even smaller subset thereof and there are only 14 families of patricians. Even if you assume that each family has something ridiculous like 30 members each, that is still only 420. Ifly6 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. Could you change "people writ large" to "plebeians" or similar? After all, plebeians explicitly includes at least a big chunk of the people (the patricians and senators). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I read the instructions. The instructions do not say you have to check literally every statement made like in an FA. That said, because that is more specific, I can provide you the specific sentence for that specific claim:
- Spot-checks are a standard part of reviews at all levels, including asking for quotations. To pass this as a GA, I need to be able to affirm that the citations are verifiable (see WP:GANOT, which asks reviewers to
- I'm not sure how you can complain about not-entirely-close paraphrasing of single sentences in the article and then demand that I actually infringe on extensive paragraphs for verifiability. Wikipedia's copyright obligations do not end in the Talk namespace. You seem to have access to the source; I recommend checking it. If that isn't possible, I can only tell you that I assess that the sources validate the article claims. Ifly6 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I may have been unclear: could you please quote the text and/or note from Flower? To be clear; this is a WP:VERIFIABILITY check: I'm asking you to verify (prove) that the source text actually does contain what the article asserts (via citation) that it does. I'm happy with the change on unconstitutionally. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- The representation of the people is in the previous page of Flower. See also note 10 thereat. I altered the citation to
- Tiberius' response was to invent a novel legal justification for his violent deposition (article) isn't fully supported by
- It was in the old version of the article, quoted below. "[depose] and [manhandle] an elected tribune of the plebs" in a "similarly unprecedented breach of political behaviour". I call it a "novel legal justification" because the following sentence says "unconstitutional behaviour of the other (Gracchus)". Ifly6 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Tiberius believed that a previous law, commonly identified by modern scholars as the Licinio-Sextian rogations of the early fourth century BC
: This is cited to Roselaar 2010, p. 99: I can't see any mention of Tiberius' beliefs in Roselaar, nor in the Beard reference for the following section (in fact, Beard hasTiberius proposed to restrict their holdings to a maximum of 500 iugera
, which certainly doesn't imply that Tiberius already thought that restriction existed). There's a Steel citation in the next sentence: if it comes from there, could you give me the quotation? Otherwise, this needs to be reworked.
- The following responses are given to address these for the record. Steel 2013:
Tiberius wished his measure to appear not as an innovation but rather as a return to ancestral practice...
. Ifly6 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- The following responses are given to address these for the record. Steel 2013:
- Note 52 says that Roselaar allows for a date of 133 for the 500-iugera maximum, which would imply that it never existed: Roselaar writes on p. 100
We know for a fact that the limit of 500 iugera was introduced before 167
, which says the opposite; on p. 101, she explains how the 167 date is generally upheld even though its source (Cato apud Livy) is dubious.
- I'll quote what I said instead of allowing it to be mischaracterised as Roselaar saying it. I said
Roselaar... documents scholarly disagreement as to when a 500 jugera maximum was in fact implemented... Suggested dates range from 300–133 BC
. Literally on p 100:When the amount of 500 iugera was introduced is, again, hotly debated; some date the limit... to about 300... Some argue for an even later date, around 145, or even 133 BC
. Ifly6 (talk)
- I'll quote what I said instead of allowing it to be mischaracterised as Roselaar saying it. I said
- This legal maximum on land holdings, if it actually existed, was largely ignored and many people possessed far more than the limit (emphasis mine) is partly cited to Roselaar, who instead has
It is usually assumed that many people possessed far more land in 133 .... However, only two large possessors are known to us by name ...
, which is saying the opposite. I don't see it in Scullard at all, though please correct me with the quotation if I've missed it.
- Sullard p 18:
in practice this limitation had often been disregarded... many men held public land in excess of the legal limit
. Ifly6 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sullard p 18:
while also endowing those people with the necessary land to meet army property qualifications.
: minor, but Beard presents this as what "may have" been Tiberius' justification; in the article, we've presented that justification as fact, contra Beard.
- The next citation – {{sfnm|Roselaar|2010|1p=230|de Ligt|2004|2pp=752–53}} – gives that
The restoration of the class of small farmers was supposed to lead to an increase of the number of potential recruits for the army
. The mechanisms for that are identical when in this period the army is made up only of those who meet the property qualification. Ifly6 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- The next citation – {{sfnm|Roselaar|2010|1p=230|de Ligt|2004|2pp=752–53}} – gives that
The main goal of the project, therefore, was to increase the number of men meeting army property qualifications and settle more people onto the land to reverse the apparent population decline
: cited in part to Roselaar, but Roselaar is talking about a real population decline; the article currently implies that the only reason for the apparent population decline was the impoverishment of rural people.
- No, Roselaar is discussing the population of Italy
according to the census figures, had been declining for the last thirty years
, which is apparent and not real. Ifly6 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, Roselaar is discussing the population of Italy
According to Plutarch, Tiberius initially proposed compensation, but the compromise offer was withdrawn after opposition; his later proposal was to compensate by securing tenure with a cap of 500 jugera
: I'm not totally sure of the exact meaning of "securing tenure with a cap of 500 jugera", but Roselaar follows with "plus the additional amount for children.", which means that the cap was not 500 jugera.
- Well taken. Ifly6 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
At a broad level, the bill was proposed before the concilium plebis; Tiberius forwent the approval of the senate before a bill was to be introduced. In response, the senate secured one of his tribunician colleagues to veto the proceedings
: I don't see this in the cited source, could you provide a quotation if I've missed it?
- At Flower ed 2014 p 79:
legislation passed by the plebs in their assembly [12 words omitted] it was not customary to introduce laws without the endorsement or against the will of the senate. In this context it is understandable that the senate arranged for another tribune of the plebs, Marcus Octavius, to veto the whole proceeding
. Also, if this is close paraphrasing, anything that expresses any general concept that X caused Y is close paraphrasing. Ifly6 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- At Flower ed 2014 p 79:
Note: article text first, source text second.
- Tiberius and his supporters believed the problem was that the poor were being driven off land by the slave-owning rich, causing people to refrain from having children they could not feed, and a consequent decline in living standards and the number of available soldiers: Roselaar:
the poor were driven off the (public) land by the rich, who cultivated their large estates with slaves, so that the poor were excluded from opportunities for wage labour. The people were reluctant to have children they could not feed, which led to a decline of the number of free citizens, a decline in the number of available soldiers
- Thirty jugera is often suggested, but this is rather large compared to the amount of land distributed to each family during Roman colonisation projects (only 10 jugera).: Roselaar:
the amount of thirty iugera is often suggested ... a plot of thirty iugera seems large compared to the amounts granted to colonists in earlier Roman colonies
- it is likely that the land was fully privatised but given conditional on payment of the vectigal. If the vectigal were unpaid, the land would revert to the state, which would then be able to redistribute it to a new settler: Roselaar:
In fact, it would make sense if the Gracchan allotments became private on the condition that a vectigal on them was paid,... In this case, when the settler stopped working the land or was unable to pay the vectigal, it reverted back to the state, which could then assign it to another settler.
- Fatal resistance to Tiberius' law, however, did not emerge until Tiberius proposed using the bequest of Attalus III of Pergamum to finance the commission. It is not clear for what purpose this money was to be used: Roselaar:
resistance against him did not come to a head until Tiberius attempted to use the bequest of the Pergamene king Attalus to finance the distributions. It is not certain for what purpose he wanted to use this money.
- merely determining how much ager publicus was available for redistribution had not started and would be extremely time-consuming: Roselaar:
determining which land was public and distributing it would prove to be a very time-consuming task
- Minor, but part of a bigger picture: After this proposal, Tiberius was attacked in the senate by Quintus Pompeius and accused of harbouring decadent regal ambitions: Lintott:
This provoked attacks on him in the Senate by Metellus Macedonicus and Q. Pompeius ... Thus Gracchus was already being portrayed as morally decadent and an incipient tyrant
. Also mild WP:TSI: a tyrant and a king, particularly in the ancient world, were not the same thing.
- Tiberius was breaking a major norm in Roman politics, which placed the finances and foreign policy in the hands of the senate. Senators also feared that Tiberius intended to appropriate Attalus' bequest to hand out money, which would massively benefit him personally. This was compounded by his attempt to stand for re-election: Roselaar:
Tiberius was now meddling in matters which were traditionally the task of the Senate, namely matters of finance and international politics. The Senators feared that by handing out money to the people he would gain a great deal of personal power ... His attempt to be re-elected added to the impression that he was trying to gain more power.
- His bid for re-election was possibly in violation of Roman law: Gruen (quoted in footnote, but not attributed in text):
It is possible that this attempt [for a second tribunate] was in violation of Roman law
.
- Tiberius and supporters fell without resistance: von Ungern-Sternberg:
Gracchus and his supporters fell without resistance
- I saw that you failed the GAN. I take the allegations of WP:CLOP seriously and will take a look at Roselaar citations. Some of these claims are a stretch, as there are limited ways to express identical causal chains that all come from one source: Plut TG 8–9. Ifly6 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Review template
[edit]GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- This one is certainly close to the bar, mostly due to some unclear bits of phrasing or unexplained technical vocabulary; if some of the points raised could be addressed, it would be a clear pass.
- b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Possibly very minor WP:WORDSTOWATCH, but no substantial concerns here.
- a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
Some sources cited in references are missing in bibliography; mixture of long and short footnotes needs to be addressed to comply with MOS:LAYOUT (MOS:NOTES)Per discussion on GAN talk page, this is above the requirements for GAR, so passed.
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- Multiple verification checks on sources failed; the sources themselves are reliable, but their use has introduced significant WP:VERIFIABILITY concerns.
- c. (OR):
- Some of the inferences made from cited material are not justified by that material, and so constitute OR. This may be more a 2b issue.
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Serious concerns from spot checks on plagiarism via WP:CLOP of non-free sources.
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- There's room for expansion (particularly on the scholarship re. the Italian land 'problem', and on Tiberius' post-Roman legacy), but this is fine for GA.
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- A matter for the next reviewer's interpretation; the article does take sides in scholarly disputes, though not in a particularly controversial way.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- All now resolved on this front.
- b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- There are serious sourcing problems in this article: I have checked a large number of citations, and well over half have come up either with WP:TSI concerns or WP:CLOP. To be satisfied that the article meets WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:PLAGIARISM, I would need to be able to check at least the vast majority of the references; unfortunately, that is beyond my capability. I am therefore failing the review in the expectation that these issues will be addressed and another reviewer with a better library and the skills to do so will take it up. The article has made great progress over this review and I am sure will continue to do so.
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
Copyedit changes
[edit]@UndercoverClassicist: I just wanted to tell you that I changed instances of iugera
into jugera
. The meaning of the letter is clear; it is more didactic and clear to have it in an unambiguous orthography unless a specific countervailing need arises. Ifly6 (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping; my rationale was that the j is a post-classical spelling (Classical Latin doesn't have a letter j), and so is anachronistic for the period we're talking about both in spelling and pronunciation. Looking at Google Ngrams, iugerum seems to have been the most common spelling since about the Second World War. I'd argue that both are unambiguous and that there is a specific rationale for iugerum - but I appreciate that this is somewhat a case of WP:WHENINROME. As you say, it's fully understandable to a reader, and (for some reason...) Latin orthography isn't one of the GA criteria. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
3,000 sq kilometers? or 30,000 sq kilometers?
[edit]There is a pretty major discrepancy in the article, in the top section it is claimed that the land commission "distributed over 30,000 square kilometres (12,000 sq mi) of land over the next few years". Later in the article it is stated that "they distributed some 1.3 million jugera (or 3,268 square kilometres)" DlronW (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Confirmed from Roselaar 2010 that 3,268 square kilometers was reported and edited 30,000 to 3,000 to correspond. Ifly6 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
TG, CG, Plut, and opportunism
[edit]¶ Hi HannoC. I saw your addition of a citation to, although I do not have that specific Loeb on hand what can only be, Plut Ti Gracch 8.7, and converted it to standard citation format. I do have a question for you (and others) though. ¶ If we include this portion, I feel it worthwhile to include a discussion on whether TG's motives in bringing the lex agraria were opportunistic as alleged by many sources. Plut TG 8.7 has been read in terms of CG attempting to refute the notion, by means of timing, that TG wanted only to advance his own career (Gell NA 11.10 seemingly notwithstanding) developing a plan for the lex agraria only after the Numantine affair. Ifly6 (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in People
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
- High-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
- All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- Start-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- Start-Class Roman and Byzantine military history articles
- Roman and Byzantine military history task force articles
- Start-Class Spanish military history articles
- Spanish military history task force articles
- Start-Class Classical warfare articles
- Classical warfare task force articles
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia requested photographs