Talk:Cantia gens

Learn more about this page

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Classical Greece and Rome List‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
List	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This gens never existed

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In the light of my decades of studies in Roman law, Latin philology and epigraphy, I can say that this gens never existed. It is stupid to affirm the existence of a gens for an haplography present only in some textual versions. Docenshistoriamromanam (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Forgive my skepticism, but you're attempting to prove a negative based on nothing more than an unverified claim of extraordinary knowledge. Considering you've provided nothing to substantiate your claim other than asserting indisputable expertise, the fact that your only contribution to Wikipedia is a bare assertion of expertise on the talk page of an extremely obscure topic raises doubts. It took approximately two minutes for me to check the C-S Databank and determine that there were at least a few Cantii besides the one currently mentioned in this article—who may well be disputed, although there's no reason to doubt the others. I'll be adding them later today, if I have time. P Aculeius (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Added thirty-five members I could identify from a cursory search. There are probably others. P Aculeius (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic