Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Retiarius

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:03, 4 April 2008.

---

Retiarius

I've expanded this article quite a bit over the past month or so. When I started researching this Roman gladiator type, I was mostly interested in how the retiarius used his net as a weapon. I found that information and then some! At any rate, I feel the article is featured quality or at least very close; I am leaving it to you to tell me whether I am right! Any comments and criticisms are greatly appreciated. Thanks, — Dulcem (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

*CommentSupport interesting topic. You need to be aware of and limit repetition, yet make sure ambiguity isn't introduced. This can be tricky. e.g. the first 3 sentrences of para 2 of lead all start :The retiarius... - see if you can introduce some variation here. Back later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• The type's lack of armour,.. - dunno, but to me "type" seems a bit impersonal...can we think of a better word? Would "gladiator" work here? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed this. — Dulcem (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'd link "Imperial period" in History and role section. tweaked so linked at first mention

*.. that those retiarii who fought in tunics may have constituted an even more despised subtype (retiarii tunicati) who were viewed not as legitimate fighters but as arena clowns. - is "despised" the right word here? Maybe just "lowly-regarded"?

Comment. Most of the original source material is quoted in the article. It is really quite scathing. It would appear that there are many details lacking in the historical record (not in the article). Modern expert commentators, familiar with all surviving material, find no controversy over this. It was a macho kind of culture. I'll tell you a secret, Australians sometimes laugh at American footballers wearing protective helmets and shoulder pads. Perhaps tunicati were despised as a cultural variation on a similar theme. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK then, sounds good to me. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• ..Retiarii first appeared in the arena during the 1st century AD and had become common by the 2nd or 3rd century. - Common always makes me think of naturally occurring things, would "popular" be better here? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Commonness and popularity are different, though. What is meant is that the type became a frequent part of the gladiatorial programming by the 2nd or 3rd century. Would that wording be better? — Dulcem (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Never mind; changed it to "standard attractions".— Dulcem (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• The retiarii lived in the worst barracks. - are we able to clarify 'worst' a bit?Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I tried searching around a bit more, but no dice. All Grant says is that the retiarius "ranked as inferior in status and was given the poorest living quarters" (p. 61). — Dulcem (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am pondering quotations in the History and role section - the quotations indented break the prose nicely, but for consistency there is another by Suetonius not indented, and is punctuated by commentary. I am unsure how to proceed for consistency or flow...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this should be fine. The commentary wouldn't be possible if we just quoted Suetonius in a blockquote. — Dulcem (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There are a lot of quality refinements of vocabulary selection, and suggestions for smoothing the text in the comments above. As for content, what matters most to me is a comprehensive survey of primary sources. I checked several secondary sources, and they were unanimous in noting the limited material associated with retiarii. All quoted exactly the same passages cited in the current form of the Wiki entry.

I really like the entry. It has a that "classical scholarship" feel about it. It's NPOV and RS, but has a touch of bringing the ancient world to life. It does this without being overly technical and dry, or prententious and dubious. Imo very nice, very Wiki. Thanks heaps to the editor. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the content looks good. Prose is a very common issue in FAC debates and I think a little prose massaging is the main step before supporting in this FAC. I'll look some more. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. I've got a printout of the article and a long bus ride ahead of me today; I'll go over it once more. :) — Dulcem (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment the lead still needs citations. This can be fixed fairly easily so I have made my point a comment not an oppose, however I personally don't think I can support until this is fixed. Incidentally, increasing image size might make image detail a little easier to see. SGGH ^speak! 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• per WP:LEAD and WP:CITE, lead sections only need citations in extraordinary circumstances, as they are overviews of content in the body that is cited. Is there some particularly contentious claim in the lead that is not cited in the body? If not then it doesn't need cites. VanTucky 21:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• That is my understanding as well and the reason why the lead is currently cite-less. — Dulcem (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

All other links checked out fine with the tool. All sources looked good and all refs looked good to me. I'll try to get back in a bit and review it more in depth. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response to comments: I've done another copy edit, paying particular attention to repetitive prose. Hopefully, that problem has been fixed. It's late now, so time for bed. I'll address some of the other issues raised tomorrow (barracks, commonness, etc.). Thanks again to everyone who has commented so far. — Dulcem (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, done. Back you y'all for more. :) — Dulcem (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Slight oppose for now, mainly because of the missing citations on the quotations. I'll be happy to support when the concerns below are addressed.

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• History and role section, third sentence of the first paragraph seems awkward to me, especially the part about "Rare gladiator fights were ..." Consider changing it to something along the lines of "Very rarely gladiator fights were staged over water; the reasons for this are unknown but they may have inspired the concept of a gladiator based on a fisherman."
• Same section, third paragraph, the sentence starting with "The reaction of the emperor Caligula ...", the quotation in that sentence needs a citation directly on the quotation per WP:Cite
• Same section and paragraph, next sentence is awkward. Consider "It is likely that this was not a standard competition..." or "This was likely not a standard competition..."
• Same section, the fourth or fifth paragraph (I can't tell because of the block quotes) the sentence starting "It is unusual to see a gladiator depicted this way in a satire..." the quotation in this sentence needs a citation.

All in a all a very nice article. I enjoyed reading it and found it easy to read and understand. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Replies:

• I've implemented your suggested prose changes.
• I'm not sure why the quotes are a problem. The direct quote from Suetonius and the following paraphrase both come from the same source, so the source citation "Suetonius XXX" serves for both. As for the quote about "It is unusual to see . . . ", everything from this point to the end of the paragraph is from Cerutti and Richardson 593, and shares the same source citation. — Dulcem (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally, in academia, (and this is reflected in Wikipedia's guidelines) you always directly attribute quotations, whether by saying " "So-and-so said "blah" " or by using a footnote/reference right at the end of the citation. I won't oppose if other folks don't feel it is necessary, but WP:Cite#When quoting someone does recommend putting the right at the quotation. If the consensus of other FAC reviewers is that it's not required, I'll bow to consensus on this though. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's all the same to me, so I've gone ahead and changed it. Is that what you had in mind? — Dulcem (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Great article! This is a very interesting topic, and greatly deserves to be one of Wikipedia's finest. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Writing needs work In all cases, I know what is meant, but it's not what the article says.
  • First line The retarius... was a class of Roman gladitors..... No, he wasn't. He was a gladiator.
  • particularly the absence of a helmet to mask and dehumanise him. I presume this is based on the notes to Juvenal cited, but the claim that dehumanization is masculine requires more than a single source cited at another point in the article.
  • Rare gladiator fights were staged over water for unknown reasons. Please reread your source; this is doubtful. The use of water to simulate naval warfare is quite commonly mentioned in the primary sources; if Junkelman argues that the reasons were unknown, his reasoning should be presented (as his, not consensus). If this is his silence, find a better source.
  • With some difficulty, I have forced a break before Juvenal's second satire. Perhaps all that matter relating to Juvenal II and VIII should be a subsection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. The retiarius was a gladiator and it was a class of gladiator. Both statements are correct.
      • Neither in Latin nor in English is this the case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The effeminacy issue is something raised in numerous sources based on Suetonius, Juvenal, and Seneca. Duncan, Braund, and Cerutti and Richardson all mention this, and I can find many other sources to support the connection. I think the argument is that to Roman eyes, less armor = more effeminate. The lack of a dehumanizing helmet fits in with the lowly status, not necessarily the effeminacy, though. Are you arguing that the effeminacy bit of the lead be broken out from the sentence in which it is now?
      • You may be attempting to squeeze too much into a single sentence. The present text implies that helmets dehumanize, which makes secutores less feminine. If you mean that helmets dehumanize and also, for other reasons, add status, please divide the sentence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I just removed the bit about helmets. Breaking it into two sentences destroys the flow, and the helmets are just one example of how they were treated poorly, after all. — Dulcem (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I misread Junkelmann; this has been fixed. Good catch.
    • I'm not sure why the <br> tags are needed. The article displays and prints fine for me without them. (?) — Dulcem (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure either, but until I tweaked, I saw no break of any kind before Juvenal's second. This may be a named-ref bug. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think both points are resolved already, however, both struck me when copy-editing earlier.

Firstly, I think retiarius is indeed primarily used as a collective noun for the class of gladiator. Latin does not use articles to distinguish between reference to a generic individual or to the class as a whole. Personally, I prefer the current form of the first sentence, using a generic "singular" in English. The best of many alternatives, imo, would be, "Retarius (literally net man) was a type of gladiator." However, it too rigidly follows the "first word of article = title of article" and is too faithful to the Latin. The most idiomatic English expression should almost always take preference over rigid rule-keeping (again imo).

Secondly, the whole effeminacy thing troubled me at first reading, sounded so much like a potential "gender agenda". However, a little reference checking and research confirmed this is absolutely standard interpretation of the original sources, predating any modern gender debate. Of course, all that is being claimed is that the Roman sources perceived gender in these terms, which is absolutely fascinating and bang on my personal research field. Conclusion: thanks heaps for teaching me something I didn't know, but that I really should know. It helps me "get into Roman shoes", what did they consider manly? It was a very big deal to them.

My high school motto was veritate et virtute. In the culture of the language used, virtute (manliness) included kitting up and trading blows toe-to-toe — working hard not smart. I doubt very much virtute, as understood by native speakers, would be taught any more. But I digress. Thanks again for a thought-provoking article, standing the test of scrutiny of sources. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt by PMAnderson to reconcile his own objection (this diff), but I agree with Alastair. Saying "the retiarius was a gladiator" is true, but so is "Spartacus was a gladiator". Here there is potential for confusion between a single individual who happens to be a gladiator who has the name retiarius and a class of gladiators with that name. Including the word "class" makes it less ambiguous. Also, I disagree that English does not allow for a construction such as "the retiarius was a class of gladiator". Just check this Google Books search for many, many examples of works that describe them thus. Here's a similar search for retiarius type. I don't understand PMAnderson's objection to this wording. — Dulcem (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To say (as most of these do) that "the retarii were a class" would be unexceptionable; so would be using retarius and class in the same paragraph, which is what is actually being searched for. But a retarius is not a class; he is a person. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see; you object to the singular noun retiarius matching with the collective noun class. I still think it's important to phrase the opening sentence in some way that gets across that this article describes a class of gladiator rather than a single individual. But I think I'm happy with your proposed compromise. I may still attempt to squeeze in the word "class" somewhere in the lead section. Not sure where just yet . . . . — Dulcem (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Language In Australian English it is usually acceptable to phrase a generic statement in any of the following ways:

• A batsman seeks to score runs without losing his wicket.
• Batsmen seek to score runs without losing their wickets.
• The batsman seeks to score runs without losing his wicket.

The last form is normally the most abstract and formal. The first two seem to be pretty equally popular.

It is also worth considering usage where one "type" (genre or class) is contrasted with another.

• Batsmen score runs for their team, while bowlers restrict the opponents' score.
• A batsman scores runs, while a bowler restricts the opponents' score.
• The batsman scores runs for the team, while the bowler limits the opponents' score.

The first two options are again natural, while the last is somewhat more formal because of its abstracting "feel". Interestingly, definite and indefinite article, or use of the plural do not have to be used in parallel (as above).

• The batsman scores, but bowlers ...
• A batsman scores, but the bowler ...
• Batsmen score, but a bowler ...

To my ear, if a plural is used first, it does tend to influence the rest of the sentence. I think this is because hearers have a default expectation that singulars following plurals are more likely used to communicate a distinction between many and one, rather than being merely stylistic variation on ways of expressing genericity.

• Batsmen score, but a bowler has a more subtle role.
• Batsmen score, but the bowler has a more subtle role.

The first will often be prefered because the indefinite article is less likely to be ambiguous.

In the current article, retiarius or "net-man" is implicitly contrasted with other classes of gladiator. The secutor, in particular, is named. There is no specific individual on view, only a specific type. It is a very significant stylistic issue, however, that clear writing often suggests a singular generic individual for the sake of clarity. Alternatively, use of the plural can also aid clarity because it makes the genericity ("dealing-with-types-ness") of the text explicit for the reader.

There are several grammatically wrong ways of stating things (none have been proposed). There are many options to state things grammatically, with differing levels of clarity. Some of the assessment of degree of clarity is subjective. When I copy-edit for such things, I propose what seems clearest to my ear, but I give way if the author insists.

With a consensus available, like in this case, perhaps we should offer three or four options and have a vote. Varieties of English most certainly vary (in fact, what is clearest to second language users often sways me, unless it shows misunderstanding of idiomatic usage).

Proposal The article needs to start either by defining retiarius as a type of gladiator -- semantic precision -- or it needs to start by defining retiarius by using a concrete generic individual -- simplicity and readability. Both options are "legal" and "quality". Both should not be attempted in the same sentence (or consecutive clauses) -- i.e. compromise would confuse. The sources show the Latin word was used in both ways, so I think we are free to do what we like. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Of these options, beginning (as a definition) with A retiarius is a gladiator [of such-and-such a kind] still seems the most straightforward. To take another Roman example, a plebeian is a Roman who did not belong to the patrician aristocracy; the class of Romans is the plebs. Please remember that we are writing for an audience which does not know Latin, and has no suspicion, at the first sentence, whether the word means a person or a class.

The OED follows the same line: " A Roman gladiator who carried a net with which to entangle his adversary." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm easy on this. I like to imitate OED where possible. I would note, though, the class of Roman gladiator that ... would have been more cumbersome in compressed dictionary definition format. That a class is refered to is implicit in the use of the indefinite article, and in the scope of the relative clause that constrains which gladiators fall within the definition. In dictionary format, don't say what isn't absolutely necessary (sorry for two negatives). In encyclopedic form, a word or two to aid clarity can be expected by readers.

Important thing here though, featurability of this article doesn't depend on the first sentence. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This began as a simple comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)000

• Support—This is good. Just one query: a caption says "2nd–3rd century AD"—Does that mean we can date the painting only to a period of 200 years? CenturIES? TONY (talk) PS AusEng? I know of no distinctive approach to generic phrasing in this variety. TONY (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, actually, that's quite plausible. Very little ancient painting survives, and hardly any of it is signed. Except for the styles preserved at Pompeii, which has a large amount of work subject to a firm terminus ante quem, most dating is very uncertain.Septentrionalis PMAnderson

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.