Talk:Maximinus Daza

Son of his sister

Shouldn't it be half sister? Just so people understand it better or at least faster.Smileyface 12 91 11:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

To Waldir, who put the merge tags up: why? They're two seperate Emperors and I see absolutely no reason to merge them! I also find it ironic that when someone removed the merge tags, you put them back saying "please state in the edit summary, at least, the reasons for your edit", but you never explained why you put the tags up in the first place! - rst20xx (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact I'm gonna put these tags' addition down to a mistake, and remove them. If you want to re-add them, please justify. - rst20xx (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi rst20xx, thanks for your edit. I admit I put those tags out of a suspicion I had, since when I was working on the Elias and companions and Firmilian (Roman governor) articles, I couldn't figure out for sure which Maximinus the sources referred. And since they were both roman emperors, governing at overlapping periods (308 to 313 and 305 to 311), and had suspiciously (or at least I though) the very similar names of "Gaius Valerius Galerius Maximinus" and "Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximianus", and almost overlapping life periods (270-313 and 250–311), and finally taking into account that historical records from those times are often imprecise and sometimes there are many accounts of the same events; I then decided to make sure they were different persons by putting the merge tag, expecting someone (like you) to come and clarify the issue. So, are you saying that all these coincidences are just that -- coincidences? Or there is a (even remote) chance they could be the same person? Waldir ^talk 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, they're different people, and you have to bear in mind that Roman naming conventions worked in different ways than naming conventions do nowadays, so them having such similar names is much less of a coincidence. If you read the articles you'll find that one is the uncle of the other - rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that's interesting... but I didn't know about this thing of there being more than one roman emperor at a time... By the way, can you tell me which one of them is the one referred in Firmilian (Roman governor)? Waldir ^talk 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Milvian Bridge

Perhaps there could be more information about the Battle of the Milvian Bridge? It took place in 312 and was a fairly significant step in the direction of Constantine's sole rule and the coming defeat of Maximinus II. The battle of the Milvian Bridge does have its own wikipedia page so even to mention it and supply the lilnk would be helpful in understanding the events of Maximinus' rule and final defeat. Here is the link :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Milvian_Bridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosepone (talk • contribs) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference Issues

1. The article depends, heavily on Eusebius' church histories. This is reasonable but Wikipedia policy prefers scholarly secondary sources. The secondary sources help filter out misinterpretations, or problematic interpretations, of the primary sources. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

2. The article also cites Gibbon's Decline and Fall it's a monumental secondary source, but quite dated. Much new information has come to light since then, and some of Gibbon's sources have turned out to be fakes. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I would like to note that , as concerns the account on the evolution of Daia's attitudes towards Christianism, I drew heavily on the general information to be found in the handbook on the Later Roman Empire by Carrié & Rousselle (L"Empire Roman en Mutation) where I found the info on the Arycanda inscription, which is not in Eusebius - although it agrees with him in proving Daia's hostility towards Christians. Since said book is in Franch, I offered reference to the relevant info through a site in English. But then, I will add this reference to the article.Cerme (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Name

He is mentioned as Maximinus Daia in modern literature. Why does this article use a different form? Borsoka (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Avilich made the change in January because apparently "Daia" is a historical misspelling and the real name was "Daza". I'm not sure the move was appropriate as it was done as a technical request rather than a discussion, and that Maximinus Daia is still clearly the prevailing form per Google Ngrams (link) - even the purely numerial designation Maximinus II (which strangely is not mentioned in the article at all) beats out Maximinus Daza. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's the prevailing form because older sources which you can find in the internet for free use it. Surely I don't need to tell anyone that search numbers are unreliable and are no substitute for reliable sources. I used a technical request because I couldn't see any controversy in the sources that would justify a discussion. Had I put this through a discussion, no doubt many people would come here, say 'oppose' on basis of search results alone without even looking at any actual source, and make reaching a genuine consensus that much difficult. Avilich (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Google Ngrams is not a tool for search numbers, it shows the frequency of a term in printed sources - see its article here Google Ngram Viewer, which is why I am leaning towards "Daia" still appearing to be the WP:COMMONNAME? Both DIR and the PLRE use "Daia" if I'm not mistaken. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, older printed sources. The article uses two sources, the first of which (Mackay) says "there can be no question that Dazam is to be preferred to Daiam, a form that should be banished from modern works." The second, Barnes, says "Maximinus' original name was not Daia, which stands in the manuscript of Lactantius, Mort. Pers. 18.13, but Daza, which is a well-attested Illyrian name: the manuscripts of Epitome 40.18 have ante imperium Daza dictus ..." Unless there are reliable sources which explicitly say that Daia should be preferred to Daza, then the matter is uncontroversial, and the instances of Daia supposedly outnumbering Daza should be ascribed either to the source in question being old or its author having failed to catch up to modern scholarship. Avilich (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that "Daia" is the historically correct rendition of his name, I agree that "Daza" is, I'm arguing that because of whichever historian first did the mistake, Maximinus Daia is still the prevailing modern WP:COMMONNAME. Google Ngrams shows that print sources even in the 21st century still overwhelmingly use Daia. Constans II, Byzantine Empire, Latin Empire, Philippikos Bardanes and Heraklonas, to name a few, are not names in contemporary usage either but they are the prevailing terms in modern scholarship. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding the terms "Maximin Daia" and "Maximin Daza", which I've also seen used, Maximin Daia also outnumbers Maximinus Daza in modern print sources (link). Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

So, I checked out COMMONNAME and it says the following: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". It says nothing about there being a need to wait for several years until the correct form of a name outnumbers the incorrect one in print sources, which makes zero sense from a WP:COMMONSENSE perspective and is rendered irrelevant by the fact that "Maximinus Daia" already exists as a redirect. See, for example, Empress Joséphine, which is not titled "Joséphine de Beauharnais" despite that being a common name. The sources I gave were published halfway through the 21st century up til now (2009 and 2011), so it's hardly surprising that, as of 2021, Daza is still in the minority. Your examples are all historical conventions, which can't be wrong or right, just convenient or not. Incidentally, "Maximinus Daza/Daia" is also an anachronistic historical convention. Avilich (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this argument has merit. I don't feel very strongly about this, and as I said I agree that "Daza" is more correct than "Daia". I do still feel however that both 'Maximinus Daia' and 'Maximinus II' ought to be mentioned in the lead as they are commonly used names for this emperor (both still more common that Daza), either listed in the first sentence (as with Valerius Severus/Severus II) or as a note (as with Julian and his enumerations). Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

In Daza's case here I think a footnote is more appropriate than mentioning all the alternatives in the first lede sentence, and I think Valerius Severus needs to be renamed to Severus II. Avilich (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I added a footnote with the most common alternate forms, let me now if you think it's okay. I agree on Severus: per Ngrams the names are really close in the amount of usage, but Severus II wins out slightly, and his coins all either abbreviate Valerius to Val. or omit it entirely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's good for now, I'll take the Severus question to the relevant talk page. Avilich (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)