Talk:Theodora (wife of Justinian I)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theodora (wife of Justinian I) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Good article nomination
editI believe this is ready to nominate for GA status. However, my role has only been as a copy editor. Someone who is more familiar with the content and sources is needed for the GA nomination. It is perfect timeing for nomination because of the Women in Green | Good Article Edit-a-thonOctober 2023 – Around the World in 31 Days. I would be happy to help with the GA process if a primary content producer is avaible as well. Rublamb (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Procopius section
editThe section “Critiques of Procopius”, while well written and sourced, is a major diversion from the topic here, Theodora. Most it presumably belongs instead in the Procopius article, unless there is some other, even more appropriate article. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that most of that section needs to go to its own article. Soidling (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Intersectionality Comment
editSlandering Precopius with some 2020 article about intersectionality is nonsense. We have what was written by those authors back then and saying he doesnt know because he wasnt there first hand is nonsense. We have lots of history we accept from 3rd hand sources and making up "slut shaming" terminology is nonsense. There was a reason actresses were banned from marrying noblemen, because of the acts they did. This revionist history has to stop without sources and calling everyone bias and just not accepting what they wrote. 149.62.206.246 (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Procopius's Secret History is not a reliable source and references to it should be expunged
editProcopius's Secret History is not a reliable historic source. It is a work of exaggerated parody and/or slander - no more reliable as a historic text than South Park episodes are for recent history.
Or, if you want to look at it another way - imagine using The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a reliable source. 109.175.107.150 (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)