![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This is ridiculous. Julius Caesar was known for most as a political leader and a military leader in Rome. Therefore, the specifically made Infobox for an office holder, to highlight both his offices and his military service, is the correct one to use.
Someone keeps re-editing the page to be a general persons Infobox, then just adding in the fields of offices held and military record. Why? There is literally an Infobox specifically made that already has those fields in it. It’s a useless and clunky and sloppy thing to do. Digital Herodotus ( talk) 14:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
As I already said, the office holder Infobox is there for pages about office holders. Why would this page have any other Infobox? Digital Herodotus ( talk) 15:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
None of you are making real arguments as to why an office holder should not have the office holder Infobox, especially when those fields are being added anyway into the “person” Infobox used in the article. Also, Caesar’s terms as a consul (highest office in Rome) is indeed of importance and should be listed clearly in the Infobox. He was first and foremost a politician and military leader, why would he have anything other than an office holder Infobox? Digital Herodotus ( talk) 21:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus | |
---|---|
![]() J. B. Hagenauer, Fabius Cunctator (1777),
Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna | |
Consul of the Roman Republic | |
In office 233, 228, 215, 214, 209 BC | |
Dictator of Rome | |
In office 221, 217 BC | |
Censor of Rome | |
In office 230 BC | |
Personal details | |
Born | circa 280 BC Rome, Italy |
Died | 203 BC |
Nationality | Roman |
Relations | Fabia gens |
Children | Quintus Fabius Maximus |
Known for | Fabian strategy |
Awards |
Grass Crown Roman triumph |
Nickname | Cunctator |
Military service | |
Allegiance | Rome |
Branch/service | Roman army |
Battles/wars | Second Punic War |
Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus | |
---|---|
![]() J. B. Hagenauer, Fabius Cunctator (1777),
Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna | |
Born | circa 280 BC |
Died | 203 BC |
Nationality | Roman |
Known for | Fabian strategy |
Office |
Dictator (221, 217 BC) Consul (233, 228, 215, 214, 209 BC) Censor (230 BC) |
Children | Quintus Fabius Maximus |
Military career | |
Nickname(s) | Cunctator |
Battles/wars | Second Punic War |
Awards |
Grass Crown Roman triumph (233 BC) |
To address Ifly6, the point is that a consul was the highest office in Rome, and Caesar’s time there is important enough to mention in his Infobox. This is a major historical figure, and his Infobox should convey crucial details about him to a reader, especially one who might not know much about Roman history.
Others are mentioning space used, but an important figure like this should have a larger Infobox to reflect who he was. Listing out the important offices held and when he held them should be listed (in an office holders Infobox) as well as a detailed list of his military history.
The average user uses the Infobox as a reference point for the article to look up key info, like their birth date, and in this case, what offices they held. I also think at the very least a detailed list of the battles and wars he fought in should be there too as it makes it easier for the reader to keep track of all of them and when they happened and in which order. Digital Herodotus ( talk) 22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but Cesar WAS in office for a decade as Dictator, and his time in office was more akin to a modern officeholder. You're making an argument that the template does apply to this article, but you don't like the vibes. -- Sleyece ( talk) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
[H]is various dictatorships are barely mentioned [in the accounts]... What references there are, moreover, are uniformly incidental. Id. p. 310. Dio's narrative is most complete, even though he omits Caesar's fourth dictatorship, and he does not characterise the dictatorships as offices per se. Rather,
his notices of each new dictatorship were bundled with lists of other honors... as if dictatorships were of no more note than any of the other binfuls of laurels being accorded Caesar after his defeat of Pompey. The other accounts did the same, thus,
in the view of the ancient historians and biographers... [Caesar's] dictatorships... were incidental to the authority he possessed on account of being himself. Id. pp. 312–13. Ifly6 ( talk) 15:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
[H]isandvarious dictatorships[presidencies] are barely mentioned [in the accounts]
in the view of the, then no, he shouldn't be given a specific officeholder template. Why? Because this ceremonial office is not what matters. Ifly6 ( talk) 18:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)ancienthistorians and biographers...[Caesar's] dictatorships[his presidencies]... were incidental to the authority he possessed on account of being himself
Gaius Julius Caesar | |
---|---|
![]() The
Tusculum portrait, possibly the only surviving sculpture of Caesar made during his lifetime. Archaeological Museum,
Turin,
Italy. | |
| |
Personal details | |
Born | 12 July 100 BC
[2] Rome, Italy |
Died |
15 March 44 BC (aged 55) Theatre of Pompey, Rome |
Manner of death | Assassination ( stab wounds) |
Resting place |
Temple of Caesar, Rome 41°53′31″N 12°29′10″E / 41.891943°N 12.486246°E |
Spouses | |
Domestic partner | Cleopatra |
Children | |
Parents | |
Occupation |
|
Awards | Civic Crown |
Military service | |
Years of service | 81–45 BC |
Battles/wars | |
I believe this is the most encyclopedic way of displaying an ancient republic or direct democratic officeholder, but I'm open to any suggestions that would improve this article that avoid "WIIIIIIISDOM of the Ancients" nonsense. -- Sleyece ( talk) 14:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Sleyece, as
Furius pointed out, there is no consensus for
your deletion of a majority of the infobox. This talk page provides no evidence of your putative Infobox Cleanup; Per Current Consensus
. Re your info box at right (or above), merely moving the offices to the top and centring them adds nothing and obscures to an unknowledgeable reader that they are offices. It is also not what your edit does as your edit obliterates all mention of offices; nor is there any consensus for your proposed info box.
Ifly6 (
talk)
23:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
( edit conflict) It seems to me that you have come here largely to be disruptive. You made two edits to the article. The first removed all mention of Caesar's literary works; the second deleted the majority of the info box based on a mendacious and highly tendentious reading of the talk page. You are now making unspecified claims that the article is substandard and that all constructive edits are (and will be) reverted.
I have seen no indications that all changes will be reverted. The list of offices that you first wanted to move around and later deleted? It was I who added it last November. Last year I added some 2000 characters on the modern rejection of "prosecution theory". If you want to make constructive contributions to the article that actually improve on it – the sourcing especially in the earlier sections is atrocious and impossible to parse due to the enormous jumbles of links – I think they would be well taken; if you make actual improvements and they get reverted I'll also defend them on this talk page.
What it seems to me is that instead you have decided to do nothing about the unspecified inadequacies of the article, lie about the consensus on this talk page, lie about how long you've watched the page (I've watched the Julius Cesar [sic] article since it was demoted from a featured article
; your account was created on 20 October 2016 when the article was
demoted in 2005) and content yourself with deleteriously deleting useful material from highly visible info boxes. A lot of work needs to be done on this page both to clean it up and also to turn it from a loose paraphrase of Suetonius into something that reflects modern scholarship. If you are interested in doing that, I can point you to some useful sources (Morstein-Marx 2021 and Meier 1982 are excellent).
Ifly6 (
talk)
03:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
References
As a book-writer this seems weirdly like something you'd see in a book, and not in Wikipedia:
"Caesar was still deeply in debt, but there was money to be made as a governor, whether by extortion or by military adventurism."
It's... maybe it should be fixed?
Rockethead293 ( talk) 18:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
First, to get this out of the way, the fact that https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html
, https://archive.today/20120530163202/http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html#24
, and its ilk are repeated in full every few sentences makes the Wiki text absolutely unparseable. I'm going through and replacing these with SFN-style citations.
[1] I am aware of
WP:CITEVAR; this is a case where where readability is so badly damaged by the extremely long links that it has become extremely difficult to maintain the article itself. There are hundreds of citations each repeating something like:
Suetonius, ''Julius'' [https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html#24 24] {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120530163202/http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html#24 |date=30 May 2012 }}
That is 274 characters. A {{
harvnb}} citation – {{harvnb|Suet. ''Iul.''|loc=24}}.
– would take up just 29 characters.
It also does not help that many times the links cite the wrong thing: they call LacusCurtius (the name of the site) "Penelope" (the hosting platform) or "University of Chicago" (the hosting provider) or fail in some cases to provide any section numbers at all, just waving in the general direction of the relevant biography. This also persists to citations of Caes. BGall.: whoever wrote it just waved in the general direction of an entire book. There's one citation that points to books 4 and 5, which in LCL take up pages 181 through to 316. This is laughably vague. I've read the biographies – they are unreliable history but that aside – I'll go put in section numbers where they are obvious and missing.
There are other issues here. Large portions of the biography section ought to be tagged with {{ primary sources}}; it is largely a synthesis dating from c. 2005 – in some portions misunderstanding those sources [2] – which is based on four sets of sources: Plut. Caes, Suet. Iul., Cic. Att., and Caesar himself. There's one section which says that Caesar was a lucky and masterful general... cited to Caesar's own commentaries. Large sections need to be re-sourced with an eye looking at a high quality secondary source. There are also issues where some sections are based on blog posts and plainly unreliable sources. I have rewritten some short sections as well.
When the save occurs, there ought to be a massively large big red -10,000s on the history page. It will largely be removing duplicated URLs; there are two sorts, the duplicated URLs between citations and (the worse kind) duplicated archive URLs within the same citation for a live site. There will be some cases where basic factual errors are corrected. [3] Ifly6 ( talk) 06:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The story of Julius Caesar and the pirates seems fake, per Morstein-Marx 2021 p 62 n 118: True or not, it seems most likely to be a product of the (late) biographical tradition and there is no evidence that the story was even known or public in the late 70s
. He cites Pelling's 2011 commentary (pp 138–41) on Plutarch's life, which I don't have on hand.
Ifly6 (
talk)
08:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The article is extremely long. What do people think of turning
Julius Caesar § Aftermath of the assassination into just {{see|Assassination of Julius Caesar|War of Mutina|Liberators' civil war}}
(links those articles:
Assassination of Julius Caesar;
War of Mutina;
Liberators' civil war)?
Ifly6 (
talk)
08:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
There are a number of dubious claims cited to Abbott 1901, which is a near-ancient book that in my view is not (or no longer) a reliable source. See also Talk:Sulla § Source reliability. I've noted them in the article with {{ dubious span}}; though some of the errors are sufficiently basic I think they may lie in the editor that added it rather than Abbott's material. Nor am I convinced that we need an entirely separate section on Caesar's "constitutional" reforms which are really just ad hoc patches. Unlike Abbott, people today no longer believe that Caesar had some Grand Design™ to "put the republic to rights":
However, he had no plans for basic social and constitutional reform. The extraordinary honours heaped upon him by the Senate, nearly all of which he accepted, merely grafted him as an ill-fitting head on to the body of the traditional structure, creating an abyss between him and his fellow nobiles, whose co-operation he needed for the functioning and the survival of the system. [4]
Beyond Abbott (or the reflection thereof in the page) being unreliable and replaceable with any number of better sources – Lintott Constitution (1999) comes immediately to mind – I think the section could be removed or integrated into the general narrative without any loss of amenity. Ifly6 ( talk) 20:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
¶ Modern scholars... have sought to evade the fatal alternative [Caesar went to war just for himself] by crediting Caesar with a superior statesmanly vision and a genuine cause... that he was standing up for Rome, Italy, and the peoples of the empire against a blinkered, self-seeking, and super-annuated senate, or that he wished to create a just and effective system of government and fundamentally renew the structure of the Roman empire. ¶ If this was so, Caesar said nothing about it, either at the Rubicon or subsequently, and no other evidence can be cited in support of such a view. On the contrary, it is clear that no one knew anything of it. None of the groupings in the civil war was moved by any such objective considerations.. Ifly6 ( talk) 02:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I removed the portion relating to the Caesares at Bovillae. Badian 2009 p 14 calls it a fake: The attempt at archaizing spelling and the (inconsistent) doubling of vowels... give us an approximate date... L. Accius... the altar has had a disastrous effect in modern scholarship
. Similarly, I have removed the portion on etymology – ibid at 13 – Ancient etymologies and explanations of the name [Caesar] are best ignored
.
Ifly6 (
talk)
00:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd appreciate any copy-editing or collaborative editing on the Gallic Wars. I never really cared for them and have tried to keep it as brief as possible while covering the major points; this is in part why I've used rather high-level sources for it. Perhaps it's because I'm much more WP:CGR than WP:MILHIST, but I personally find the whole matter rather boring and would have been satisfied myself with the vague single page in Boatwright et al Romans (2004) p 242 that, like Aug RG barely names any of Caesar's enemies. If anyone has anything well-sourced to add that does not unnecessarily pad the article, I would appreciate it. Ifly6 ( talk) 05:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The section on the civil war is really confused. Somehow the existing narrative confuses Cato – who wasn't at Thapsus – with Metellus; places Caesar's first dictatorship – before 48 BC because he was made dictator to conduct elections that he then won – after Pharsalus. Some of the text is just puffery. I am rather surprised and dismayed – if I were frank there are other words – that this has gone unnoticed since 2003 ( Special:Diff/1756174; Special:Diff/1803691). I will look at this tomorrow. Ifly6 ( talk) 02:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
References
No one sings the hymn that Mommsen wrote to Caesar any longer.
@ Ifly6: Hi, I agree that there is no need to hatnote a misspelling, but in this case the hatnote to Ceasar (disambiguation) is for some (though probably not many) readers who are genuinely looking for "Ceasar", not for the misspelling. Otherwise they might get stuck at Julius Caesar with no easy way to navigate to their target article.—— HTinC23 ( talk) 19:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Ceasarit should not redirect to ol' Julius. Ifly6 ( talk) 20:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both! I have changed Ceasar to Ceasar (disambiguation) for now. —— HTinC23 ( talk) 20:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Julius Caesar "the conquerer of gaul" is also the person who the mouth conquering dish caesar salad is named after, this should be remembered as a eternal part of his legacy he brought prosperity to rome and protein to cooks. 2405:201:D021:E0DB:283D:8A30:C80E:83B4 ( talk) 15:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Cornelis de Bruijn wrote in 1677, while having visited Naples and travelling back to Rome:
"Coming close to Pozzuoli, you can see an amphitheater or theater, as well as the ruins of the Temple of Apollo, and not far from there, the cave of the Sibyls. To visit the cave, one intentionally takes torches along. I found it to be about a quarter of an hour long, and at the end, there was a small chamber surrounded by a stone bench, with a kind of pedestal in the middle.
Once again, we set out to visit the hot baths which are naturally very hot. This heat also spreads to the nearby ground, burning the sand to a depth of about half a foot, so much so that one cannot keep their hand in it. Furthermore, on the mountain, the ruins of Nero's palace appear, and nearby, close to the seaside, there is still a remnant of Julius Caesar's palace. [1]"
I've tried to determine the place that Cornelis might have been referring too and my best bet would be this roman villa near Pozzuoli. But I have no clue or knowdledge to determine wheter there might be any truth to Cornelis his remark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoschA ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The text says "secured not by extraordinary magistracy or legally powers but by personal status". I suppose this should be "legal powers" or perhaps "legally exerting his powers", or some such construction. 82.15.39.58 ( talk) 09:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
References
@
Rizzle685: Re
this edit. First, there is
MOS:LEADLENGTH, which this article is rather long on already. Additions in the lede really therefore should be highly selective and reflect only the most important topics. Second, see
WP:BAREURL on this unspecific citation to Britannica. You should cite the specific thing there (or given there are no pages the section heading with metadata). Alternatively a book that covers the reception of the imperial period. Third, the lede is the summary of the article. That means that it reflects the body contents. There is no discussion of Qaisar
in the body of the article, which is where it should go. I also think that the specific language of the received forms are unnecessary; that is material for the article body.
Ifly6 (
talk)
23:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if this article had a pronunciation button (if that is what it is called) like Beyoncé, has this pronunciation button that you can click to see the pronunciation. I request that someone puts it in the article, but in Latin pronunciation not English. 76.64.181.63 ( talk) 07:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Gaius Julius Caesar others has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31 § Gaius Julius Caesar others until a consensus is reached.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Of the thousands of articles I've read on Wikipedia, this is the worst written by such a large margin that no other article comes close. Alas, I cannot edit it. Is it coincidence that it is a "protected" article? Ymisyd ( talk) 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether it's been mentioned in this article before, but there should be _some_ mention of Caesar's_Comet. Having the possibly brightest comet event in recorded history widely linked to you is notable. -- 31.111.54.229 ( talk) 10:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This is ridiculous. Julius Caesar was known for most as a political leader and a military leader in Rome. Therefore, the specifically made Infobox for an office holder, to highlight both his offices and his military service, is the correct one to use.
Someone keeps re-editing the page to be a general persons Infobox, then just adding in the fields of offices held and military record. Why? There is literally an Infobox specifically made that already has those fields in it. It’s a useless and clunky and sloppy thing to do. Digital Herodotus ( talk) 14:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
As I already said, the office holder Infobox is there for pages about office holders. Why would this page have any other Infobox? Digital Herodotus ( talk) 15:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
None of you are making real arguments as to why an office holder should not have the office holder Infobox, especially when those fields are being added anyway into the “person” Infobox used in the article. Also, Caesar’s terms as a consul (highest office in Rome) is indeed of importance and should be listed clearly in the Infobox. He was first and foremost a politician and military leader, why would he have anything other than an office holder Infobox? Digital Herodotus ( talk) 21:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus | |
---|---|
![]() J. B. Hagenauer, Fabius Cunctator (1777),
Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna | |
Consul of the Roman Republic | |
In office 233, 228, 215, 214, 209 BC | |
Dictator of Rome | |
In office 221, 217 BC | |
Censor of Rome | |
In office 230 BC | |
Personal details | |
Born | circa 280 BC Rome, Italy |
Died | 203 BC |
Nationality | Roman |
Relations | Fabia gens |
Children | Quintus Fabius Maximus |
Known for | Fabian strategy |
Awards |
Grass Crown Roman triumph |
Nickname | Cunctator |
Military service | |
Allegiance | Rome |
Branch/service | Roman army |
Battles/wars | Second Punic War |
Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus | |
---|---|
![]() J. B. Hagenauer, Fabius Cunctator (1777),
Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna | |
Born | circa 280 BC |
Died | 203 BC |
Nationality | Roman |
Known for | Fabian strategy |
Office |
Dictator (221, 217 BC) Consul (233, 228, 215, 214, 209 BC) Censor (230 BC) |
Children | Quintus Fabius Maximus |
Military career | |
Nickname(s) | Cunctator |
Battles/wars | Second Punic War |
Awards |
Grass Crown Roman triumph (233 BC) |
To address Ifly6, the point is that a consul was the highest office in Rome, and Caesar’s time there is important enough to mention in his Infobox. This is a major historical figure, and his Infobox should convey crucial details about him to a reader, especially one who might not know much about Roman history.
Others are mentioning space used, but an important figure like this should have a larger Infobox to reflect who he was. Listing out the important offices held and when he held them should be listed (in an office holders Infobox) as well as a detailed list of his military history.
The average user uses the Infobox as a reference point for the article to look up key info, like their birth date, and in this case, what offices they held. I also think at the very least a detailed list of the battles and wars he fought in should be there too as it makes it easier for the reader to keep track of all of them and when they happened and in which order. Digital Herodotus ( talk) 22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but Cesar WAS in office for a decade as Dictator, and his time in office was more akin to a modern officeholder. You're making an argument that the template does apply to this article, but you don't like the vibes. -- Sleyece ( talk) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
[H]is various dictatorships are barely mentioned [in the accounts]... What references there are, moreover, are uniformly incidental. Id. p. 310. Dio's narrative is most complete, even though he omits Caesar's fourth dictatorship, and he does not characterise the dictatorships as offices per se. Rather,
his notices of each new dictatorship were bundled with lists of other honors... as if dictatorships were of no more note than any of the other binfuls of laurels being accorded Caesar after his defeat of Pompey. The other accounts did the same, thus,
in the view of the ancient historians and biographers... [Caesar's] dictatorships... were incidental to the authority he possessed on account of being himself. Id. pp. 312–13. Ifly6 ( talk) 15:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
[H]isandvarious dictatorships[presidencies] are barely mentioned [in the accounts]
in the view of the, then no, he shouldn't be given a specific officeholder template. Why? Because this ceremonial office is not what matters. Ifly6 ( talk) 18:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)ancienthistorians and biographers...[Caesar's] dictatorships[his presidencies]... were incidental to the authority he possessed on account of being himself
Gaius Julius Caesar | |
---|---|
![]() The
Tusculum portrait, possibly the only surviving sculpture of Caesar made during his lifetime. Archaeological Museum,
Turin,
Italy. | |
| |
Personal details | |
Born | 12 July 100 BC
[2] Rome, Italy |
Died |
15 March 44 BC (aged 55) Theatre of Pompey, Rome |
Manner of death | Assassination ( stab wounds) |
Resting place |
Temple of Caesar, Rome 41°53′31″N 12°29′10″E / 41.891943°N 12.486246°E |
Spouses | |
Domestic partner | Cleopatra |
Children | |
Parents | |
Occupation |
|
Awards | Civic Crown |
Military service | |
Years of service | 81–45 BC |
Battles/wars | |
I believe this is the most encyclopedic way of displaying an ancient republic or direct democratic officeholder, but I'm open to any suggestions that would improve this article that avoid "WIIIIIIISDOM of the Ancients" nonsense. -- Sleyece ( talk) 14:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Sleyece, as
Furius pointed out, there is no consensus for
your deletion of a majority of the infobox. This talk page provides no evidence of your putative Infobox Cleanup; Per Current Consensus
. Re your info box at right (or above), merely moving the offices to the top and centring them adds nothing and obscures to an unknowledgeable reader that they are offices. It is also not what your edit does as your edit obliterates all mention of offices; nor is there any consensus for your proposed info box.
Ifly6 (
talk)
23:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
( edit conflict) It seems to me that you have come here largely to be disruptive. You made two edits to the article. The first removed all mention of Caesar's literary works; the second deleted the majority of the info box based on a mendacious and highly tendentious reading of the talk page. You are now making unspecified claims that the article is substandard and that all constructive edits are (and will be) reverted.
I have seen no indications that all changes will be reverted. The list of offices that you first wanted to move around and later deleted? It was I who added it last November. Last year I added some 2000 characters on the modern rejection of "prosecution theory". If you want to make constructive contributions to the article that actually improve on it – the sourcing especially in the earlier sections is atrocious and impossible to parse due to the enormous jumbles of links – I think they would be well taken; if you make actual improvements and they get reverted I'll also defend them on this talk page.
What it seems to me is that instead you have decided to do nothing about the unspecified inadequacies of the article, lie about the consensus on this talk page, lie about how long you've watched the page (I've watched the Julius Cesar [sic] article since it was demoted from a featured article
; your account was created on 20 October 2016 when the article was
demoted in 2005) and content yourself with deleteriously deleting useful material from highly visible info boxes. A lot of work needs to be done on this page both to clean it up and also to turn it from a loose paraphrase of Suetonius into something that reflects modern scholarship. If you are interested in doing that, I can point you to some useful sources (Morstein-Marx 2021 and Meier 1982 are excellent).
Ifly6 (
talk)
03:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
References
As a book-writer this seems weirdly like something you'd see in a book, and not in Wikipedia:
"Caesar was still deeply in debt, but there was money to be made as a governor, whether by extortion or by military adventurism."
It's... maybe it should be fixed?
Rockethead293 ( talk) 18:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
First, to get this out of the way, the fact that https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html
, https://archive.today/20120530163202/http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html#24
, and its ilk are repeated in full every few sentences makes the Wiki text absolutely unparseable. I'm going through and replacing these with SFN-style citations.
[1] I am aware of
WP:CITEVAR; this is a case where where readability is so badly damaged by the extremely long links that it has become extremely difficult to maintain the article itself. There are hundreds of citations each repeating something like:
Suetonius, ''Julius'' [https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html#24 24] {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120530163202/http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html#24 |date=30 May 2012 }}
That is 274 characters. A {{
harvnb}} citation – {{harvnb|Suet. ''Iul.''|loc=24}}.
– would take up just 29 characters.
It also does not help that many times the links cite the wrong thing: they call LacusCurtius (the name of the site) "Penelope" (the hosting platform) or "University of Chicago" (the hosting provider) or fail in some cases to provide any section numbers at all, just waving in the general direction of the relevant biography. This also persists to citations of Caes. BGall.: whoever wrote it just waved in the general direction of an entire book. There's one citation that points to books 4 and 5, which in LCL take up pages 181 through to 316. This is laughably vague. I've read the biographies – they are unreliable history but that aside – I'll go put in section numbers where they are obvious and missing.
There are other issues here. Large portions of the biography section ought to be tagged with {{ primary sources}}; it is largely a synthesis dating from c. 2005 – in some portions misunderstanding those sources [2] – which is based on four sets of sources: Plut. Caes, Suet. Iul., Cic. Att., and Caesar himself. There's one section which says that Caesar was a lucky and masterful general... cited to Caesar's own commentaries. Large sections need to be re-sourced with an eye looking at a high quality secondary source. There are also issues where some sections are based on blog posts and plainly unreliable sources. I have rewritten some short sections as well.
When the save occurs, there ought to be a massively large big red -10,000s on the history page. It will largely be removing duplicated URLs; there are two sorts, the duplicated URLs between citations and (the worse kind) duplicated archive URLs within the same citation for a live site. There will be some cases where basic factual errors are corrected. [3] Ifly6 ( talk) 06:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The story of Julius Caesar and the pirates seems fake, per Morstein-Marx 2021 p 62 n 118: True or not, it seems most likely to be a product of the (late) biographical tradition and there is no evidence that the story was even known or public in the late 70s
. He cites Pelling's 2011 commentary (pp 138–41) on Plutarch's life, which I don't have on hand.
Ifly6 (
talk)
08:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The article is extremely long. What do people think of turning
Julius Caesar § Aftermath of the assassination into just {{see|Assassination of Julius Caesar|War of Mutina|Liberators' civil war}}
(links those articles:
Assassination of Julius Caesar;
War of Mutina;
Liberators' civil war)?
Ifly6 (
talk)
08:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
There are a number of dubious claims cited to Abbott 1901, which is a near-ancient book that in my view is not (or no longer) a reliable source. See also Talk:Sulla § Source reliability. I've noted them in the article with {{ dubious span}}; though some of the errors are sufficiently basic I think they may lie in the editor that added it rather than Abbott's material. Nor am I convinced that we need an entirely separate section on Caesar's "constitutional" reforms which are really just ad hoc patches. Unlike Abbott, people today no longer believe that Caesar had some Grand Design™ to "put the republic to rights":
However, he had no plans for basic social and constitutional reform. The extraordinary honours heaped upon him by the Senate, nearly all of which he accepted, merely grafted him as an ill-fitting head on to the body of the traditional structure, creating an abyss between him and his fellow nobiles, whose co-operation he needed for the functioning and the survival of the system. [4]
Beyond Abbott (or the reflection thereof in the page) being unreliable and replaceable with any number of better sources – Lintott Constitution (1999) comes immediately to mind – I think the section could be removed or integrated into the general narrative without any loss of amenity. Ifly6 ( talk) 20:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
¶ Modern scholars... have sought to evade the fatal alternative [Caesar went to war just for himself] by crediting Caesar with a superior statesmanly vision and a genuine cause... that he was standing up for Rome, Italy, and the peoples of the empire against a blinkered, self-seeking, and super-annuated senate, or that he wished to create a just and effective system of government and fundamentally renew the structure of the Roman empire. ¶ If this was so, Caesar said nothing about it, either at the Rubicon or subsequently, and no other evidence can be cited in support of such a view. On the contrary, it is clear that no one knew anything of it. None of the groupings in the civil war was moved by any such objective considerations.. Ifly6 ( talk) 02:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I removed the portion relating to the Caesares at Bovillae. Badian 2009 p 14 calls it a fake: The attempt at archaizing spelling and the (inconsistent) doubling of vowels... give us an approximate date... L. Accius... the altar has had a disastrous effect in modern scholarship
. Similarly, I have removed the portion on etymology – ibid at 13 – Ancient etymologies and explanations of the name [Caesar] are best ignored
.
Ifly6 (
talk)
00:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd appreciate any copy-editing or collaborative editing on the Gallic Wars. I never really cared for them and have tried to keep it as brief as possible while covering the major points; this is in part why I've used rather high-level sources for it. Perhaps it's because I'm much more WP:CGR than WP:MILHIST, but I personally find the whole matter rather boring and would have been satisfied myself with the vague single page in Boatwright et al Romans (2004) p 242 that, like Aug RG barely names any of Caesar's enemies. If anyone has anything well-sourced to add that does not unnecessarily pad the article, I would appreciate it. Ifly6 ( talk) 05:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The section on the civil war is really confused. Somehow the existing narrative confuses Cato – who wasn't at Thapsus – with Metellus; places Caesar's first dictatorship – before 48 BC because he was made dictator to conduct elections that he then won – after Pharsalus. Some of the text is just puffery. I am rather surprised and dismayed – if I were frank there are other words – that this has gone unnoticed since 2003 ( Special:Diff/1756174; Special:Diff/1803691). I will look at this tomorrow. Ifly6 ( talk) 02:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
References
No one sings the hymn that Mommsen wrote to Caesar any longer.
@ Ifly6: Hi, I agree that there is no need to hatnote a misspelling, but in this case the hatnote to Ceasar (disambiguation) is for some (though probably not many) readers who are genuinely looking for "Ceasar", not for the misspelling. Otherwise they might get stuck at Julius Caesar with no easy way to navigate to their target article.—— HTinC23 ( talk) 19:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Ceasarit should not redirect to ol' Julius. Ifly6 ( talk) 20:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both! I have changed Ceasar to Ceasar (disambiguation) for now. —— HTinC23 ( talk) 20:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Julius Caesar "the conquerer of gaul" is also the person who the mouth conquering dish caesar salad is named after, this should be remembered as a eternal part of his legacy he brought prosperity to rome and protein to cooks. 2405:201:D021:E0DB:283D:8A30:C80E:83B4 ( talk) 15:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Cornelis de Bruijn wrote in 1677, while having visited Naples and travelling back to Rome:
"Coming close to Pozzuoli, you can see an amphitheater or theater, as well as the ruins of the Temple of Apollo, and not far from there, the cave of the Sibyls. To visit the cave, one intentionally takes torches along. I found it to be about a quarter of an hour long, and at the end, there was a small chamber surrounded by a stone bench, with a kind of pedestal in the middle.
Once again, we set out to visit the hot baths which are naturally very hot. This heat also spreads to the nearby ground, burning the sand to a depth of about half a foot, so much so that one cannot keep their hand in it. Furthermore, on the mountain, the ruins of Nero's palace appear, and nearby, close to the seaside, there is still a remnant of Julius Caesar's palace. [1]"
I've tried to determine the place that Cornelis might have been referring too and my best bet would be this roman villa near Pozzuoli. But I have no clue or knowdledge to determine wheter there might be any truth to Cornelis his remark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoschA ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The text says "secured not by extraordinary magistracy or legally powers but by personal status". I suppose this should be "legal powers" or perhaps "legally exerting his powers", or some such construction. 82.15.39.58 ( talk) 09:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
References
@
Rizzle685: Re
this edit. First, there is
MOS:LEADLENGTH, which this article is rather long on already. Additions in the lede really therefore should be highly selective and reflect only the most important topics. Second, see
WP:BAREURL on this unspecific citation to Britannica. You should cite the specific thing there (or given there are no pages the section heading with metadata). Alternatively a book that covers the reception of the imperial period. Third, the lede is the summary of the article. That means that it reflects the body contents. There is no discussion of Qaisar
in the body of the article, which is where it should go. I also think that the specific language of the received forms are unnecessary; that is material for the article body.
Ifly6 (
talk)
23:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if this article had a pronunciation button (if that is what it is called) like Beyoncé, has this pronunciation button that you can click to see the pronunciation. I request that someone puts it in the article, but in Latin pronunciation not English. 76.64.181.63 ( talk) 07:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Gaius Julius Caesar others has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31 § Gaius Julius Caesar others until a consensus is reached.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Of the thousands of articles I've read on Wikipedia, this is the worst written by such a large margin that no other article comes close. Alas, I cannot edit it. Is it coincidence that it is a "protected" article? Ymisyd ( talk) 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether it's been mentioned in this article before, but there should be _some_ mention of Caesar's_Comet. Having the possibly brightest comet event in recorded history widely linked to you is notable. -- 31.111.54.229 ( talk) 10:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)