Talk:Petronius Maximus

message: Why doesn't his death date in the text match his death date in the info box? --Michael K. Smith (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death date? 

message: One of the editors removed a book alledging a "modern invention", which is referring only to the websites. The book itself is valid. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Give at least a link to a diff to let other user understand. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor removed the websites that standed as sources for being "modern inventions". But the book itself is credited and for that reason should prevail. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What diff are you talking about? Give some reference, otherwise it is impossible to understand the matter. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a "diff"? I was referring to the coin book, just that. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two sources, one is the PLRE and the other is the coin book. The PLRE is a serious prosopographical reference, the coin book is a serious numismatic source. We trust the PLRE for the names and the coin book for the coin issues. This means that the name stated by PLRE is to be trusted, until a source as authoritative as PLRE is found. Is that clear? --TakenakaN (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But why? They might be complementary. After all, PLRE was composed and published long before the coin book. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, I removed the "Anicius", since it was clearly stated that "the name "Anicius" is nowhere attached to him in the ancient sources." If it isn't, and if the PLRE doesn't list him as an Anicius, then there is no reason to blindly accept a tertiary source such as a coin collecting book for this matter. Also, please include page numbers for your sources for WP:VERIFIABILITY. Constantine   ✍  14:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't a new book be based on new findings? 194.38.128.26 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case it will clearly states its sources. Are there? --TakenakaN (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Please note that in "Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity?" (Edited by John Drinkwater & Hugh Elton) (Cambridge University Press, 2002), there is a chapter by T.S. Mommaerts and D.H. Kelley entitled "The Anicii of Gaul and Rome" in which they argue that Petronius Maximus was a member of the Anicii, and thus his nomen was Anicius and his cognomen was Petronius (see pages 116-120). This for me qualifies as a relaible secondary source to at least ammend the first sentence to say Flavius Petronius Maximus (possibly Flavius Anicius Petronius Maximus) (c. 396 – 22 April 455) was Western Roman Emperor for two and a half months in 455. Oatley2112 (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of name and source 

message: This article is in very poor shape - it contains two sections, both giving overviews of his life and death, neither integrated with each other, with the second section containing poorly worded and difficult to comprehend sentences, as well as some challenging grammar. I shall attempt to revise the article over the next few days, so if editors could refrain from editing, that would be of great help. Oatley2112 (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General state of the article