Talk:Gladiatrix

Refs

This article contains notes, but few references. It's sketchy and needs work. I'm doing a thorough ogcopyedit of gladiator and might as well do the same here. I was planning to import material from the gladiator article's Female Gladiators sub-topic and edit it into the existing text. Anyone interested please leave message here or at my talk page. Haploidavey (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

copy-edit log

As nobody has posted here or at talk page, I'll just go ahead. Have cut and pasted the material from gladiator here, and removed the most obvious duplications, along with some headings. The article is too short to need the headings that were there. Have also imported a couple of citations, and plan to remove almost all the material about the disputed London "girl gladiator" in lieu of some researched findings. I don't see the point of linking to news articles. Firstly, it's old news: secondly, news articles are not a reliable source. They're journalistic opinion.Haploidavey (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Herefordshire

the information from the hereford dig is mainly conjecture by journalists and i do not feel it should be included in the article. there was a statement released by the worcestershire archeaology service contradicting the articles. http://heritage-key.com/blogs/bija/roman-mystery-woman-discovered-near-hereford-not-female-gladiator edit: i have removed the hereford section of the article.

I see a third editor has reinstated the Herefordshire subsection in the main article. I think that is fair, as the section simply quotes the BBC - that the corpse "might be a female gladiator". The web article you cite above does not actually refute the conjecture. It says, in its final summarising paragraph, that "At this stage, very little can be said with certainty". Therefore, I would argue there remains the possibility - however slim some may judge it - that the corpse might be a gladiatrix ... unless and until subsequently proved either way. --Trafford09 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have, however, added the source you cite to the end of the article's section, so that readers can judge for themselves. --Trafford09 (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a friend member who works for the archeaology team responcible for the dig and the idea of it being a female gladiator was made up by the newspapers. It was extremely unlikely to be a female gladiator, no more likely than any other job and i feel it is erronious to make these claims in the article, i am not editing it myself but feel that this is incorrect claim that does not have any bearing on the article as in all probability this discovery was not a female gladiator and is not believed to be a female gladiator by the archaologists that discovered the burial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.163.226 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Article swamped by essay-style synthesis and original research

Most of the current content was added in a single day (9 April, 2015) by a single editor [1]. The first of their edits added over 14,000 bytes of uncited, essay-style speculation. A few citations were added by the same editor - some of these are OK because the sources deal with female gladiators; but most do not.

The authorship of the added text seems to rest on the assumption that if no source specifically says that female gladiators didn't go through the same schooliing, training etc. as male gladiators, one can reasonably assume that they did (there being no evidence to the contrary), and one can therefore quite reasonably insert "gladiatrices" alongside "gladiators" in whatever case. But of course, one can't do that. I'm about to remove all such problematic, original and speculative content, as carefully as I can. Apologies in advance for any unintended damage; sources will be salvaged and examined, and content restored or adapted where appropriate. Haploidavey (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to revert. Three hours in, near enough, and the whole is so entangled and unsound that I can barely work out what comes from where. Not a good idea to write something, apparently off the top of one's head, or from a school essay, pad it out with various opinions and only then look for cites. All sorts of stuff creeps in. I'm reverting to the version pre-9 April 2015. If needs be. Haploidavey (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, maybe not yet. I'm not too happy with some of the sources used. Some are very POV, seeking and finding gladiatrices wherever they can. And some really stretch out to meet their goal; the Manas interpretation is bothersome - even fringe; here's a pic (scroll down). To me, this looks exactly like an athlete with a strigil; how he could perceive this as a gladiatrix with a knife of any kind is beyond me. His theory had its brief time in the sun (courtesy of the popular press) and seems to have subsided. It doesn't seem at all mainstream or established, so per WP:UNDUE, perhaps it should go. Haploidavey (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

DONE (I hope). Haploidavey (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gladiatrix. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028113008/http://www.mesastate.edu/schools/sbps/hpw/Steven%20Murray.htm to http://www.mesastate.edu/schools/sbps/hpw/Steven%20Murray.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)