In introduction: "Of course this was purely a political favor done by a Senator after a blistering affair."

I see that this article cites ancient sources directly, which isn't generally accepted because ancient sources are notWP:RS. Since this promotion is from a decade ago, it could certainly stand to get looked at again atFeatured article review.buidhe08:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

With errors introduced since the 2008 featured version.[1]SandyGeorgia (Talk)20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Iazyges this is noted atWP:URFA/2020A since October that you are re-working in userspace; how is that coming?SandyGeorgia (Talk)04:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@SandyGeorgia: I've been quite busy, but the end is in sight; it'll likely take place sometime in April.IazygesConsermonorOpus meum04:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Iazyges: Any update on this? Were the changes implemented?Z1720 (talk)02:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Z1720: Unfortunately no, I have not had the time to re-work this. FAR may be the best option; hopefully, I will have time at some point in the future, but at present I have grad school with basically no breaks until the end of next summer.IazygesConsermonorOpus meum02:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The more I review this article's sources, the more concerned I am that this article doesn't fulfil theFA criteria. Concerns are outlined below:

• There seems to be a reliance on ancient sources in some sections, which as buidhe points out above, might not be accepted today.
• There are other sources that I find skeptical, like Ref 83 which useswww.dot-domesday.me.uk and numerous blog posts fromroman-emperors.org of which I could not find an author's name in the post, so I cannot confirm if author listed in this article is correct.
• There is a list of articles in "Further reading" which I think should be consulted and added into the article if able.
• There are other sources listed in "Bibliography" which are not used as footnotes in the article (like Banchich, Thomas M., Elliott, T. G. and Lewis, Naphtali) These should be used as footnotes or removed.
• The source formatting varies wildly, probably because sources have been added since its FAC promotion: some are missing years of publications for books, some missing ISBNs, and the CAH references do not indicate the full name of the author when lsited in the citations section (so the article only gives the author's last name).

I'm considering this a second notice for a possible FAR, and will indicate as such asWP:FARGIVEN. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article?Z1720 (talk)14:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Z1720: Concur with your summary of issues; I will say that the www.roman-emperors.org (which is actuallya scholarly work in spite of lackluster appearance) has changed formats recently in a very frustrating and unhelpful way, chief among them that they now remove the author's name.Archives can be used to confirm author names, however.IazygesConsermonorOpus meum16:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please take this in the spirit of inquiry - checking to see that I've understood things correctly:

• On the use of ancient sources - I've only given it a cursory check, but as far as I can see, most of the uses fall under one of the below:

1. The article is explicitly addressing the reactions of e.g. Aurelius Victor to Diocletian's treatment of Carinus' officials, and so cites Aurelius Victor to do so. It seems to me there's a case-by-case check to be done about whether there's any value in referring to that person's reaction at all (in this example, Aurelius Victor is quite a lot later than Diocletian, so my instinct would say 'no'), but, at least in principle, can the article not cite ancient sources when explicitly talking about ancient authors' views of the matter under discussion?
2. The articlealso cites modern scholarly literature, and the primary-source citation is really a matter of 'showing working' (and probably the entire evidence base on which the secondary author has basedtheir claim). Should those primary sources be excised?

• Looking quickly at the bibliography, it seems that a lot of the ugliness could be solved by imposing a uniform referencing system - most of the entries seem to have been entered manually. Personally, I quite like {{sfn}} with {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and so on. That would, at least, mean that information was presented in the same order, and perhaps be a useful first step towards going back in and tracking down missing details?
• Some of the dodgy references seem to be used in support of other, less dodgy ones, and so could be cut out without causing any real problems.

Happy to have a go along those lines, if it would help?

UndercoverClassicist (talk)21:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

www.stnicholascenter.org/how-to-celebrate/resources/liturgical/sermons/orthodox/saint-nicholas-reflection— Precedingunsigned comment added by78.190.228.0 (talk)22:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is encyclopedic. It's what modern scholarly sources say. Neither the date nor the cause of his death are known for certain.DrKay (talk)15:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Actually, DrKay, it's what a few historians havespeculated. There's no hard proof whatsoever that Diocletian committed suicide, and although papers/books may be published, getting the mainstream of university professors to accept this premise is another matter - our staff certainly hasn't, while finding the concept interesting; I doubt you will find this being taught at any major school as fact at this time. It is at university roundtables where mainstream historical thought is developed - where scholarly writings are discussed and balanced with opposing/alternate views. I'm uncomfortable about the way the paragraph ends with the impression that this is how he died - I strongly suggest a more mainstream group of sources also be used.HammerFilmFan (talk)15:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Marking here that I will be re-writing this article in my userspace to align it with featured article standards.IazygesConsermonorOpus meum05:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do you want to gut the article, or dumb it down? The featured article standards are not that great. I have seen articles losing useful sections, just to please a reviewer.Dimadick (talk)10:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Dimadick: Not particularly, no. I rewroteBasiliscus and the size nearly doubled. I just think the rewrite would actually be easy for me than double-checking every single cite to ensure it actually is there, and all the other issues that happen when it festers for some time. My main concerns are just the uncited bits and the mix of refs/primary sources.IazygesConsermonorOpus meum18:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Noting:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=5030553&diff=1056613863&oldid=1056599459#DiocletianSandyGeorgia (Talk)20:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Family tree entry for Constans is mislinked. Should be:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constans47.205.124.128 (talk)18:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

In his military reforms section, it is stated that Lactantius criticized Diocletian for the troop increases. Treadgold also maintains that a large increase in the number of soldiers occurred in Diocletian’s reign. However, in the Wikipedia page about the late Roman Army, a relatively thorough analysis concludes that Treadgold is most likely incorrect in his observation between statements made by John of Lydus (who concluded about 400k effectives) and Zosimus (who concluded 581k). The Wiki page states the following (significantly paraphrased by me):

[Treadgold argues that John was stating the start of Diocletian’s reign, while Zosimus stated the end. However, Treadgold also concludes that the army size remained constant throughout the Crisis, which is absurd. Furthermore, Zosimus has been pegged as unreliable, given he stated 60,000 Alemmani deaths at Strasbourg in 357, while Ammanius stated 6,000-8,000. Finally, It would be strange for John to give out the number of men at the beginning of Diocletian’s reign, when he could easily give out the peak number of effectives. Finally, Agathias and Zosimus may have given out the official number of men, rather than the actual, as units may have been significantly damaged from the crisis and other wars.]

I simply want Diocletian’s page to be revised in order to reflect this analysis, given that Treadgold is most likely incorrect. However, am I still unsure if this is truly the right point of view, and if a true expert can patch me up, that would be great. Thank you!Aurelianberries (talk)05:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Removed from the article because they are generating Harvref errors:SandyGeorgia (Talk)18:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Barnes, Timothy D. (1973)."Lactantius and Constantine".Journal of Roman Studies.63:29–46.doi:10.2307/299163.JSTOR 299163.S2CID 163051414.
• Corcoran, Simon (2000).The Empire of the Tetrarchs, Imperial Pronouncements and Government AD 284–324. Oxford University Press.ISBN 019815304X.
• Leadbetter, William (2001a)."Carus (282–283 A.D.)".De Imperatoribus Romanis. Archived fromthe original on 2022-03-26.
• Lewis, Naphtali; Reinhold, Meyer (1990).Roman Civilization: Volume 2, The Roman Empire. New York: Columbia University Press.ISBN 0-231-07133-7.
• Nakamura, Byron J. (July 2003)."When Did Diocletian Die? New Evidence for an Old Problem".Classical Philology.98 (3):283–89.doi:10.1086/420722.JSTOR 10.1086/420722.S2CID 161249335.

Religion: Hepersecuted Christians,crucifying more than any other emperor. Around 304, he imposed very cruel death penalty on Saint Wit, a boy of 12 who refused to convert to roman pagan religion. He imposed the traditionalpolytheistic religion of the Romans. After abdicating, he committed suicide on December 3 311!190.224.136.54 (talk)04:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

None of this can be used here withoutcitations ofsources that support it.GeneralIzation^Talk04:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

info above is well known, problem with wikipedia fake encyclopedia is that is always contradicts itself: you need source even for logical point that oxygen is required for breathing, cellular respiration!— Precedingunsigned comment added by186.178.67.172 (talk)04:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well known to whom? Apparently not to the many sources already cited in this article. And no,we don't need a citation to prove that the sky is blue, but we definitely do for the claims you've made above. SeeWP:BURDEN. If that's too much trouble, then move along please.GeneralIzation^Talk04:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

well known to all, but, it goes to show how wikistupid you are like all one sided wmf administrators are... 1. on talk pages i dont need to source anythining, just point out whats wrong or what to correct and no, sky is not always blue, especially when rains, so again you are proven wrong as wikihypocrite and self contradictor and these wiki/wmf articles had all sorts of sources but they were wrong, i rest my case, DOH/DUH:(Redacted)— Precedingunsigned comment added by177.200.51.55 (talk)04:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

You need to provide sources for anything you expect others to add to the article, and the improvement of the article is the only reason you should post this (or any) information on this Talk page. Consequently, I have removed the link to an NBC News article that has absolutely nothing to do with Diocletian or the improvement of this article. And if you direct personal attacks and insults toward me or any other editor here again, you will be blocked.GeneralIzation^Talk04:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Semiprotected to reduce the personal attacks. Apologies to any IP editors with genuine contributions to make, please hold onto them until the semi protection expires. --Euryalus (talk)11:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Two IP editors have now changed the discussion of Diocletian's death from saying that "some" suggest that he committed suicide to that "[the] majority of historians" say this. The source cited does not support this claim, but the most recent editor introducing this claim says in their summary tothis edit that "many other sources outside of wiki say so!" It is possibly true that this is the majority opinion – Brill's New Pauly says that he killed himself, though the Oxford Classical Dictionary merely says that he died – but we can't say so based on a forty-year-old source which says nothing of the sort! So: is this the majority opinion? What are the sources?Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk)14:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

It should be noted that the edit you mention was the first and only edit by that IP. I strongly suspect (but cannot prove) that that IP was the same person whoused multiple IPs to make this and other assertions concerning Diocletian in the section directly above this one, but pointedly refuses to provide any sources to support the contention.GeneralIzation^Talk14:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Does this supposed suicide even belong in this article at all? I don't doubt that "some"^{[weasel words]} people have suggested it, but it sounds like speculation without evidence, which doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. It is also difficult to reconcile this with the account given in the preceding paragraph about him being happy in his retirement.Richard75 (talk)11:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I saw in the article, I don't understand the symbols, but if they are not referring to dee-ock-lay-tee-an, it's wrong.Middle More Rider (talk)23:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply