Talk:Dominate

message: I've removed the following:
The pagan state religion had always been linked with the political elite, e.g. from Julius Caesar on the strong man (Princeps since Augustus) has systematically been made Pontifex maximus (the most prestigious but non-professional religious office), but now the state started promoting, in time even imposing, official emperor cults, the legal basis for the persecution of monotheist Christians, so an insult to the 'god' became sacrilegious.
In fact, the "divine" status never meant the person officially declared to be god. The term is adjective and means something "god-like".--Nixer 07:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence removed

message: I've removed 
*  In recent history the term dominate has begun to emerge in retail markets as one companys ability to out service and out produce another company.  In some instaces departments in the same company attempt to dominate each other.  The best example of this is Luke's Locker in Plano, TX.  They have redifined the word dominate to mean excelling in adversity and pulverising any competition.  In addtion to dominating the specialty running word many employees are also active participants in distance racing.  It is common to hear one competitor say about a Luke's Locker athlete/employee, "I just got my butt dominated."  In conclusion what makes dominating a person different than embarassing a person is that dominating is something that is done on a primal level and is more relative  to genetic fulfillment than ego stimulation.
Life is hard enough for students, toiling to copy and paste Wikipedia into their essays, without the poor dears having their efforts sabotaged by graffiti.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.26.94 (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph removed

message: Maybe it could be clarified that in this context "dominate" comes from a 4th-declension (u-stem) Latin abstract noun, and is not really the same word as the verb "to dominate".... AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: This article as it currently stands is very poor, and requires a major amount of revision and enhancement of content. I have made a start, and will continue to add content over the next couple of weeks (hopefully). By the end, this should have details over every aspect of the Dominate, including the military, religious, administrative and civil changes that mark it out from the Principate. Happy to discuss changes here. Oatley2112 (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Revision Required 

message: "Dominate" is, at best, a period only used by a minority of serious historians. Who invented it and why, when it is not useful and is misleading? 
Rjdeadly (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same as "Late Roman Empire" in History of the Roman Empire#Late Roman Empire.  It may be used more by cultural historians than reigns-and-battles historians, but it seems to be a legitimate term from what I can tell... AnonMoos (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Spurious Definition and Wiki Page

message: Good evening.
Not sure why, but I was informed that I needed to announce that I used text in this article that was found elsewhere.
I already attributed both sources, but for future reference, here they are again:
1.  
2.  </br />
-2600:1700:9190:2EE0:0:0:0:47 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of Reusing Text 

message: Greetings. It seems inappropriate for an article on Rome's Dominate to be marked with the laurel and "S.P.Q.R". I chuckle at the irony of the abbreviation for the Roman Republic being used in an article about the Late Empire. Irony aside, I pose the question because the meaning of S.P.Q.R. is already greatly misunderstood and misused. Should that be changed? Erraunt (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a generic ancient Rome icon, invoked through Template:Politics of ancient Rome, not a specific illustration to article "Dominate".  According to what H.P. L'Orange has written, the best illustration for  "Dominate" would probably be a photo of an idealized depiction of a group of four Tetrarchs. AnonMoos (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning the Graphic for this article 

message: See OCD4 sv "principate": 
It's also largely used, it appears in OCD4, to refer to a period of Roman history. Titling and nomenclature matters, especially if we want our articles to be jumping boards for people to be able to find relevant scholarship. Ifly6 (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a term for summing up how the late Roman empire (after the crisis of the 3rd century) was in many ways institutionally and culturally very different from the early Roman empire.  The "Later Roman Empire" article has a distinctly higher proportion of reigns-and-battles history than this one does.  The name "Dominate" for this article was chosen so as to take the focus away from reigns-and-battles history. AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term is near-obsolete