Talk:Fulvia

A source doesn't say what the article claims it says

The article says: "During the war, Octavian's soldiers at Perusia used sling bullets inscribed with insults directed at Fulvia personally" and cites The Roman History by Velleius Paterculus, 2.74.3. However, the source actually doesn't mention anything like this.
I added the CIL of the glandes as source --Athanasia (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Coinage error

This entry claims in the introduction (unsupported I might add) that Fulvia was the first non-mythological woman to appear on Roman coinage. To the contrary, author Ken Webb notes in "The Augustan Age" (p.81) that Octavia, sister of Augustus, was the first non-mythological woman to appear on Roman coinage, which indeed seems more likely. I can't help but think the writer of this sentence was in error. 60.242.210.126 (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the dates of the coinage featuring Octavia, but sInce Fulvia's activities occurred before Octavian became Augustus, Webb would seem to be the one in error. Fulvia died in 40 BC, nearly a decade before the Battle of Actium gave Octavian sole supremacy. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I checked other sources, and you appear to be right. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 60.242.210.126 (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Category error: this is not the Fulvia who converted to Judaism

This entry has been erroneously included in the "converts to Judaism" category. It was a different woman, Fulvia the wife of Saturninus, who converted to Judaism during the reign of Tiberius. This entry should be removed from the category, and the entry on Fulvia wife of Saturninus should be included in it.

And while we're on the subject: there's a typo in the header of the entry on Fulvia, wife of Saturninus -- her husband's name is misspelled "Satuninus." Whoever fixes the categorization problem should fix that one too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.217.252 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Other errors:

This article contains many statements (such as 'Fuvlia inherited the estate of the Gracchi') for which no source is given and which are unprovable and suspect. It also represents as fact certain items from ancient sources - the sticking of the pins in Cicero's tongue - that are dubious at best. It should be corrected to either cite better evidence for some of these claims or to delete them. Corrections should probably include material from "C.L. Babcock, The Early Career of Fulvia, American Journal of Philology 86 (1965), 1 - 32 and Antony, Fulvia and the Ghost of Clodius in 47 BC, Greece and Rome, No2, October 1995 I have corrected the date of her grandfather's consulship to 129. Smcelduff (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)smcelduff

One note about your justifiable concerns: the sticking of pins in Cicero's tongue should not be deleted, as it is clearly part of the tradition — as demonstrated by the Svedomsky painting. Rather, it should be attributed to particular sources, and its dubious factuality should be noted with citations of secondary sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I will be editing this article in the next couple of weeks to be more historically accurate and will provide more primary and secondary sources, such as by Babcock and Welch. The connection to the Gracchi seems to be untrue, I will supply the details of her family, and also include the connection to Cicero. I will also add a section on her involvement in the Perusine War and possibly add a section on sources. BernardoFata (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

While working on Sempronia (gens), I discovered some of these errors, including the mistaken assertion that Fulvia's mother, Sempronia, was one of the Gracchi. I'm fixing that right now. I also found no support for the claim that Fulvia's father, Marcus Fulvius Flaccus Bambalio, was the son of Quintus Fulvius Flaccus, the supporter of Gaius Gracchus, or that she was ever called Flacca Bambaliae or some variation thereof. These seem to have been cited to someone's personal genealogy page... all of this probably comes from some book alleging descent from antiquity.

I've removed these apparently spurious references and names, and also distinguished Fulvia's grandfather, Sempronius Tuditanus, from the Gaius Sempronius Tuditanus who was consul in 129 B.C., who seems to have been a different man. They're clearly distinguished in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, and the chronology would be difficult to explain, since the consul of 129 B.C. was probably born about 170 B.C., and perhaps earlier. It seems unlikely he was the grandfather of the wife of Marcus Antonius. P Aculeius (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Semproniae of the period are perplexing, however, and who's who still debated, so Smith's shouldn't be taken as the final word. Babcock's "Early Career of Fulvia" (referenced in the article) notes that the identity of Bambalio's father is unclear, so I don't know why the article would say otherwise without qualification. "Descent from antiquity" is a phrase that causes my blood to run cold, since genealogy is sometimes used as justification for … things that may not be worth justifying. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please consider

The citation style currently used, of placing URLs in the text with each appearance of an inline citation prevents the appearance of a critical piece of information, the access date that the URL was checked.

This has the added problem of making citations that lack URLs—and in writing about classics, this should be many, because many good sources are not digitized—appear as non links, and therefore different in appearance.

I propose changing the style of the article, moving the URLs from within the text, to the relatively standard location, in the bibliography, so that the access date can appear for each.

I also propose adding "p." for each entry where the number refers to a page, "§" for each entry where the number refers to section, etc. (because numbers following classic sources can be confusing to lay readers.

I have made this change for one citation, Weir, as an example. I propose the remainder of the bibliography follow suit. This is 30-60 mins work, to check each URL, add the access date (date check is made)—many are the same URL, and so many will be covered with the same check—and to tag any broken links that have crept in.

Please discuss here. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fulvia. 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/20080604172434/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1295.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1295.html

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) 20:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)