This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Boudica 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: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Boudica is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Boudica has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2021 and 6 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Obfuscatiion. Peer reviewers: SpencerPaddock.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit removed a passage suggesting that a bronze head of Nero was removed from its statue during the insurrection, pointing out that: "theory unsupported". Yet the reference, also deleted, reads: "[…]the balance of probability is that this provincial bronze statue of Rome’s fifth emperor was toppled and decapitated during the Boudiccan Revolt of 60/61.". Surely that's enough to sustain it in the article, albeit with some qualification, if that's thought necessary. I'm minded to reinstate this-- AntientNestor ( talk) 11:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
"which had probably stood in front of the temple was decapitated and its head taken as a trophy"isn't supported by the source. Russell and Manley consider whether it might have come from Colchester (plausible locations within which include in or in front of the temple of Claudius) along with other possibilities, but conclude only that
"the balance of probability is that this provincial bronze statue of Rome’s fifth emperor was toppled and decapitated during the Boudiccan Revolt of 60/61"without saying where that happened or that the head was taken as a trophy. We could say that a bronze head found in Suffolk may have been struck from a statue of Nero at this time, or that it probably was, but not that the statue was in Colchester, which would be implied if we left a corrected sentence in the paragraph about Colchester without qualification. NebY ( talk) 17:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The article is very much a linear narrative but the "head of Nero" sentence could still remain with "Colchester", where it's the best fit, but enlarging on the possibility that it could have come from some other stage or location of the uprising.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 08:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
A recent edit states: "The last known location of the Roman army was north Wales whilst Boudica's army's last known location was Hertfordshire and so according to a historian, the final battle place of Boudica could have taken place anywhere between these locations."
These statements are not correct. The last known location of the Roman army was Londinium, not north Wales. Tacitus stated that, when Suetonius on Mona (Anglesey) heard of the uprising, he "went through the midst of the enemy to Londinium". ("At Suetonius ... inter hostis Londinium perrexit.") "Suetonius went to Londinium" meant "Suetonius with his army went to Londinium". It did not mean "Suetonius leapt on to a horse and galloped off to see what was happening, leaving his army behind to catch up later." (In the same way that "Caesar conquered Gaul" obviously meant that Caesar conquered Gaul with his army.) So when Suetonius arrived at Londinium, it was with his entire army, other than the men who were left to garrison Mona, and when he withdrew from Londonium it was with his army.
It may also not be stated as fact that "Boudica's army's last known location was Hertfordshire," by which Verulamium is presumably intended. Suetonius would have had no need to march his army back up Watling Street, and it would not have been sensible to do so. This assumption appears to be based on a combination of misreading of the Latin text, which is admittedly vague, and on previously expressed opinions that because Verulamium is mentioned third in a list, it must have therefore been Boudica's third target. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this assumption. Tacitus gives only a brief summary of events, which are not necessarily in chronological sequence, and he does not say that Boudica's army was responsible for destroying Verulamium, only that it happened. If the rebellion was spreading, the attackers at Verulamium could equally have been local tribes. So it appears not to be correct to state that the final battle "could have taken place anywhere between" north Wales and London.
I offer these thoughts for discussion and consensus. The author may also wish to contribute further comments. 194.81.226.132 ( talk) 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
"We strive for articles in an impartial tone that
document and explain major points of view, giving
due weight for their prominence. [] All
articles must strive for
verifiable accuracy,
citing
reliable, authoritative sources."
(
Wikipedia:Five pillars)
Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves( WP:SCHOLARSHIP). We prefer newer secondary and tertiary sources to older - see WP:AGE MATTERS - and
Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.( WP:RSEDITORIAL)
Consequences for this article, Boudican revolt and Defeat of Boudica include
I know the Boudica pronunciation took over some time ago, but at a certain point, the modern pronunciation for Boudicca with the soft 'c' was used. Can someone add this in the IPA bit? Halbared ( talk) 16:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The source supporting the deleted text was a BBC radio news report concerning Roman remains found in Birmingham. An archaeologist was quoted as saying "We know the Roman Army was coming down from Wales." It therefore appears that the last-known location of the Roman army was not thought to have been north Wales. The archaeologist was also said to have commented that the battle could have taken place anywhere in between. An off-the-cuff comment in this context would not appear to qualify as quotable information from a published source. 194.81.226.131 ( talk) 15:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC) (Minor reword 194.81.226.132 ( talk) 15:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC) ) (Minor revision 194.81.226.132 ( talk) 16:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC))
This is stupid 2A02:C7F:9B35:5800:E851:2A60:2B10:AF06 ( talk) 12:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The references are not consistently formatted at present, and I want to use the Harvard system when working on the article, which I intend to raise to GA level. Please comment if you have any objection. Amitchell125 ( talk) 12:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a separate article about the revolt, so I'm unclear why there is so much overlap between this article and the other one. It looks as if the level of detail here needs to be moved across to the other article if it is not already there. Comments? Amitchell125 ( talk) 08:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I was shocked to read that "It is likely [Prasutagus and Boudica] considered themselves to have Roman citizenship; an indication of this was that Prasutagus made a will, behaviour that was typical of a Roman citizen." Will-making was not exclusive to Roman citizens; indeed leaving part or all of one's kingdom to Rome was a gambit used by some rulers who didn't want an heir to have a motive to kill them (the will could be rewritten in old age to omit Rome). Attalus III, for example, did not consider himself a Roman citizen but famously left Pergamon to Rome in 133 BC, greatly enriching the republic.
While this calls the source into doubt, it also raises a wider issue for the article. The source first; it's by a journalist, it's described as "an evocatively told story", "a gripping and enlightening recreation". I'd like to see an academic review of it. What I've seen quoted here suggests that it sets out to engage the reader with a great deal of speculative colour.
The article's been expanded by including such speculation from various sources. We should certainly not put such speculation forward in Wikipedia's voice, but more than that, we need an indication of a degree of academic consensus to include it at all. NebY ( talk) 16:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Article is beautifully done, complete, and should pass GA. My only critique is that the gallery images will be stumbling blocks for persons with disabilities, and while alt text is not a GA requirement, it would be welcome. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems unnecessarily redundant to repeat the full citation for "Hingley & Unwin 2006" 15 times. This is why {{ sfn}} & {{ harvnb}} were created. In the next day or so, I will work on fixing this. It also looks like there are a couple of other sources that can get the same treatment.
To see a this in operation in a good article, please see John C. Young (college president). For its use in a feature article, please see Ezra Meeker.
I usually do not add a Citations subheading, but usually put full citations for repeated references in the Sources subheading, under References. Peaceray ( talk) 03:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Which image should be used in the infobox?
Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 20:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
There are three different citations for Dio's Roman History. I plan to consolidate them with one that matches the text in the quotation & place the full citation in the Sources section.
There are a many citations for the same text. One name which was used in the article was Cassius Dio Cocceianus, which redirects to Cassius Dio. Some Worldcat records use the former, some the latter. I will use the latter to avoid confusion.
This is the citation that I will use:
I will include links to the pages in the {{ harvnb}} template. Peaceray ( talk) 00:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Boudica 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: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Boudica is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Boudica has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2021 and 6 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Obfuscatiion. Peer reviewers: SpencerPaddock.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit removed a passage suggesting that a bronze head of Nero was removed from its statue during the insurrection, pointing out that: "theory unsupported". Yet the reference, also deleted, reads: "[…]the balance of probability is that this provincial bronze statue of Rome’s fifth emperor was toppled and decapitated during the Boudiccan Revolt of 60/61.". Surely that's enough to sustain it in the article, albeit with some qualification, if that's thought necessary. I'm minded to reinstate this-- AntientNestor ( talk) 11:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
"which had probably stood in front of the temple was decapitated and its head taken as a trophy"isn't supported by the source. Russell and Manley consider whether it might have come from Colchester (plausible locations within which include in or in front of the temple of Claudius) along with other possibilities, but conclude only that
"the balance of probability is that this provincial bronze statue of Rome’s fifth emperor was toppled and decapitated during the Boudiccan Revolt of 60/61"without saying where that happened or that the head was taken as a trophy. We could say that a bronze head found in Suffolk may have been struck from a statue of Nero at this time, or that it probably was, but not that the statue was in Colchester, which would be implied if we left a corrected sentence in the paragraph about Colchester without qualification. NebY ( talk) 17:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The article is very much a linear narrative but the "head of Nero" sentence could still remain with "Colchester", where it's the best fit, but enlarging on the possibility that it could have come from some other stage or location of the uprising.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 08:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
A recent edit states: "The last known location of the Roman army was north Wales whilst Boudica's army's last known location was Hertfordshire and so according to a historian, the final battle place of Boudica could have taken place anywhere between these locations."
These statements are not correct. The last known location of the Roman army was Londinium, not north Wales. Tacitus stated that, when Suetonius on Mona (Anglesey) heard of the uprising, he "went through the midst of the enemy to Londinium". ("At Suetonius ... inter hostis Londinium perrexit.") "Suetonius went to Londinium" meant "Suetonius with his army went to Londinium". It did not mean "Suetonius leapt on to a horse and galloped off to see what was happening, leaving his army behind to catch up later." (In the same way that "Caesar conquered Gaul" obviously meant that Caesar conquered Gaul with his army.) So when Suetonius arrived at Londinium, it was with his entire army, other than the men who were left to garrison Mona, and when he withdrew from Londonium it was with his army.
It may also not be stated as fact that "Boudica's army's last known location was Hertfordshire," by which Verulamium is presumably intended. Suetonius would have had no need to march his army back up Watling Street, and it would not have been sensible to do so. This assumption appears to be based on a combination of misreading of the Latin text, which is admittedly vague, and on previously expressed opinions that because Verulamium is mentioned third in a list, it must have therefore been Boudica's third target. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this assumption. Tacitus gives only a brief summary of events, which are not necessarily in chronological sequence, and he does not say that Boudica's army was responsible for destroying Verulamium, only that it happened. If the rebellion was spreading, the attackers at Verulamium could equally have been local tribes. So it appears not to be correct to state that the final battle "could have taken place anywhere between" north Wales and London.
I offer these thoughts for discussion and consensus. The author may also wish to contribute further comments. 194.81.226.132 ( talk) 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
"We strive for articles in an impartial tone that
document and explain major points of view, giving
due weight for their prominence. [] All
articles must strive for
verifiable accuracy,
citing
reliable, authoritative sources."
(
Wikipedia:Five pillars)
Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves( WP:SCHOLARSHIP). We prefer newer secondary and tertiary sources to older - see WP:AGE MATTERS - and
Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.( WP:RSEDITORIAL)
Consequences for this article, Boudican revolt and Defeat of Boudica include
I know the Boudica pronunciation took over some time ago, but at a certain point, the modern pronunciation for Boudicca with the soft 'c' was used. Can someone add this in the IPA bit? Halbared ( talk) 16:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The source supporting the deleted text was a BBC radio news report concerning Roman remains found in Birmingham. An archaeologist was quoted as saying "We know the Roman Army was coming down from Wales." It therefore appears that the last-known location of the Roman army was not thought to have been north Wales. The archaeologist was also said to have commented that the battle could have taken place anywhere in between. An off-the-cuff comment in this context would not appear to qualify as quotable information from a published source. 194.81.226.131 ( talk) 15:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC) (Minor reword 194.81.226.132 ( talk) 15:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC) ) (Minor revision 194.81.226.132 ( talk) 16:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC))
This is stupid 2A02:C7F:9B35:5800:E851:2A60:2B10:AF06 ( talk) 12:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The references are not consistently formatted at present, and I want to use the Harvard system when working on the article, which I intend to raise to GA level. Please comment if you have any objection. Amitchell125 ( talk) 12:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a separate article about the revolt, so I'm unclear why there is so much overlap between this article and the other one. It looks as if the level of detail here needs to be moved across to the other article if it is not already there. Comments? Amitchell125 ( talk) 08:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I was shocked to read that "It is likely [Prasutagus and Boudica] considered themselves to have Roman citizenship; an indication of this was that Prasutagus made a will, behaviour that was typical of a Roman citizen." Will-making was not exclusive to Roman citizens; indeed leaving part or all of one's kingdom to Rome was a gambit used by some rulers who didn't want an heir to have a motive to kill them (the will could be rewritten in old age to omit Rome). Attalus III, for example, did not consider himself a Roman citizen but famously left Pergamon to Rome in 133 BC, greatly enriching the republic.
While this calls the source into doubt, it also raises a wider issue for the article. The source first; it's by a journalist, it's described as "an evocatively told story", "a gripping and enlightening recreation". I'd like to see an academic review of it. What I've seen quoted here suggests that it sets out to engage the reader with a great deal of speculative colour.
The article's been expanded by including such speculation from various sources. We should certainly not put such speculation forward in Wikipedia's voice, but more than that, we need an indication of a degree of academic consensus to include it at all. NebY ( talk) 16:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Article is beautifully done, complete, and should pass GA. My only critique is that the gallery images will be stumbling blocks for persons with disabilities, and while alt text is not a GA requirement, it would be welcome. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems unnecessarily redundant to repeat the full citation for "Hingley & Unwin 2006" 15 times. This is why {{ sfn}} & {{ harvnb}} were created. In the next day or so, I will work on fixing this. It also looks like there are a couple of other sources that can get the same treatment.
To see a this in operation in a good article, please see John C. Young (college president). For its use in a feature article, please see Ezra Meeker.
I usually do not add a Citations subheading, but usually put full citations for repeated references in the Sources subheading, under References. Peaceray ( talk) 03:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Which image should be used in the infobox?
Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 20:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
There are three different citations for Dio's Roman History. I plan to consolidate them with one that matches the text in the quotation & place the full citation in the Sources section.
There are a many citations for the same text. One name which was used in the article was Cassius Dio Cocceianus, which redirects to Cassius Dio. Some Worldcat records use the former, some the latter. I will use the latter to avoid confusion.
This is the citation that I will use:
I will include links to the pages in the {{ harvnb}} template. Peaceray ( talk) 00:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)