# Talk:Boudica

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)

Using Harvard references makes the article almost impossible to edit, and much harder to follow the footnotes. I would oppose that. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks​, I'm interested to know if there's a discussion out there about the problems you identify with Harvard. Do you know of any? Amitchell125 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
How about Harvard citation no brackets? Personally, I always make a sources section at the bottom, add full citations to that, and use sfn everywhere else, unless I have a special reason not to.  Tewdar  14:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As a reader, I much prefer to be able to hover the mouse over the footnote number, and see the details of the citation without having to lose my place in the text. With Harvard-style citations, there are two links to follow, and I have to lose my place. I prefer full footnotes in printed books for the same reason, but at least with harvard citations I can leave my finger or a bookmark on the page I'm reading while I look up the details of the work that's being cited. On screen, I can't do that. So I think it's much more helpful to the reader to have the details of the work being cited in the footnote.
As an editor, I find it complicates the business of citing unnecessarily. I don't see it as having any advantages at all over full footnotes. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, but this sounds like your personal opinion - I was interested in knowing what the general opinion is. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like another just entitled editor who wants other people to do the work you're not prepared to do, and then throw it back in their face. Don't yank my chain like that again. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Policy is to avoid switching an article's citation style - WP:WHENINROME. NebY (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I'll stick to the style given by this example as a template: Webster, Graham. Boudica, the British Revolt against Rome Ad 60. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield. p. 93, and any other styles used in the article will be amended accordingly. Thanks to all for their responses. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Have to say, i agree with Nicknack009; Harvard isn't very reader friendly, i find ~ using popups to quickly view the references is ideal ~ nor editor friendly, either. Glad you're not going to change it.  Also glad to see the possibility of raising to GA level! Happy days ~ LindsayHello 22:26, 10 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)

Agree; keep the salient points only here. There's also lavish treatment at Defeat of Boudica.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. It's tedious work keeping the two articles in step and some editors might not realise there are two, so improvements, corrections and clarifications may not appear in both. AntientNestor's diplomatic to say "lavish"; we have eg problematic duplications and variations about the place of the final battle and Boudica's burial in Defeat of Boudica. Should that be merged into Boudican revolt? NebY (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Great idea! Do want to be bold go ahead with the merge yourself? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
We'd need a proper merge discussion. NebY (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, that's what I meant. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Great, long overdue for a merge and delete IMHO. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:41, 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)

@NebY: Hi, reading through a lot of Collingridge's book recently, I am coming to the conclusion that it is rather speculative in places, and might have passages that need careful checking before they are used. I'll look for an academic review as you suggest. She was the last of the authors I turned to when working on improving this article, and so if necessary she can be 'unpicked', so to speak, quite easily.
I don't know which other parts of the article (or which sources) you regard as speculative. Could you provide more information? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Here's another example, which i deleted after starting this talk-page section:
His position as a client king benefitted both his people and the Romans, who profited from being occupiers whilst permitting a local king to continue ruling on their behalf. Prasutagus and Boudica would have led comfortable lives, partly as a result of increased contact with Roman tastes and styles.
It doesn't have any direct foundation in sources or archaeology. It seems to be making a more general assumption that clientship was beneficial to the clients, which is highly arguable especially in the light of frequent revolts by clients and Roman expansion of the empire, let alone the idea that contact with Roman tastes would make their lives more comfortable. I glanced at Waite's bio on Amazon, presumably provided by himself or his publisher, which tells us about his previous army and police career, his talks to local history groups etc, his social media presence and so on, but not about his academic credentials.
We are currently also citing him for the banal truism
If the uprising had not been recorded by the ancient sources, little more than a name—and perhaps not even that—would now be known.
We also have a statement about Dio's style that could be sourced to more established historians, even to specialists in historiography or on Cassius Dio himself. It's not clear why we'd want to elevate Waite to being our authority on him.
According to the historian John Waite, Dio wrote in a flamboyant style that was "reliant on sensationalistic impact". His account is known from an epitome of his works by John Xiphilinus, an 11th century Byzantine monk.
Is that statement about the epitome from Waite? It reads as very close paraphrasing of Vandrei. Waite is also provided as the source for
the terms of the treaty compelled the Iceni to be neutral during the conquest of Britain
which is apparently banal and unarguable, except that we don't know how Waite knows the treaty prevented the Iceni from joining with the Romans in conquest, lacked a breach clause, or laid out that the Roman agenda was to conquer Britain.
I don't have the book to hand but I cannot, on this evidence, regard it as a WP:RS and I don't see that it's necessary to fill the article out with such speculation. We are editors, and one of the most important decisions editors make is to leave it out.
This is just a brief look at some uses of one source. I haven't tried to review the whole article; you asked for more information so I expanded on my previous deletion and just followed that thread. NebY (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Looking at today's edits, I see more speculation:
No details of Boudica's background exist, but she probably originated from an important local family.
I'm curious about
The Iceni emerged in c. 30, the earliest united British tribe capable of minting its own coinage. The exact boundaries of the Iceni lands are not known.
"Emerged" is an odd term when unqualified - it presumably means when they first appear in the archaeological record rather than when they formed or when they came out of the forest. It's not stated whether 30 is AD or BC, and does Davies say they were the first capable of minting or the weaker statement that theirs are the oldest British coins we have? NebY (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Plenty to work on here! Many thanks for taking the time. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

@SusanLesch: I can easily do the alt texts. Many thanks for the heads up, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


### Redundant citations for "Hingley & Unwin 2006"
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)

Looks like I need to proceed carefully footnote by footnote. The very first footnote that I checked had a pagination error. Peaceray (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Still in progress ... Peaceray (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 Done Peaceray (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Which image should be used in the infobox?

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the left image is more engaging. Peaceray (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that it is too low-res, too pixelated and has an unattractive patch of reflected light. The right image is higher-quality and easier to read, in my opinion. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The B&W engraving is certainly of better resolution, but the process has allowed some moiré, which is distracting. Disclosure: I originally substituted the current colour image for the engraving, but I'm less certain now after  reading Tim's comments.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
While the full-blown image may be two low-res & pixelated, we are discussing essentially a thumbnail size image for the Infobox. The color version is certainly more eye-catching than the monochrome image, which looks not much better than a grey smudge at the thumbnail resolution.
If you wanted something with better resolution for a thumbnail, I would suggest using the cropped version of B, File:Boadicea Haranguing the Britons (called Boudicca, or Boadicea) by John Opie - cropped.jpg.
I have done a preview of all three. I would be fine with A or the cropped version of B, but not B itself. Peaceray (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Alternatively, there is an image here that the copyright holder has published in the public domain. Could this be uploaded to the Commons? If so, that would be ideal. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I tried, but Commons gave me the following message:
     Copy uploads are not available from this domain.     
Peaceray (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
There is also this version File:Queen Boudica by John Opiecrop.jpg Peaceray (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The version there seems to run into the same issues, resolution, reflection, albeit to a much lesser extent. It is slightly better, but I do think I'd still prefer the engraving. However, we could of course choose a third alternative, such as this image.  Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Well done! Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:58, 9 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:

Dio, Cassius (2015) [1925]. "Epitome of Book LXII". Roman history (in Ancient Greek and English). Vol. VIII. Translated by Cary, Earnest; Foster, Herbert Baldwin. London; New York: William Heinemann; G. P. Putnam's Sons. pp. 61–171. ISBN 978-0-434-99176-1. OCLC 906698883 – via HathiTrust.
I will include links to the pages in the {{harvnb}} template. Peaceray (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Cassius Dio is not an English-style name, so citing it as "Dio, Cassius" is incorrect. See Roman naming conventions. His full name was probably Lucius Cassius Dio, with "Lucius" being his praenomen, the equivalent of an English given name, and his nomen "Cassius" and cognomen "Dio" both being inherited family names. It would be better cited simply as "Cassius Dio". --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
If you change cites please make sure to fix the refs that rely on them. See Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors for details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Boadicea movie (1966) by Argus International - www.imdb.com/title/tt5624774/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.72.221 (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC) 

Released in 1966 per IMDB or 1968 according to the handwritten poster or flier, with a director born in 1951 and cast otherwise unknown to IMDB, filmed on a local common according to IMDB (on what basis?) in Cinemascope according to the poster[1], of which another site says only 5 silent minutes remain which are notable only for "the 16-year old Murphy's ability to get his female classmates to prance around half-naked for his historical epics",[2] this lacks encyclopedic significance for this article. NebY (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Tacitus does not actually mention involvement from the IXth Hispana in his writings, except the intervention of its commander. His description of the force led by Petilius Cerialis is vague and clashes with the much more precise description of Suetonius’s forces a few paragraphs later, which includes legion number. Had the IXth been involved for sure, I don’t see why Tacitus wouldn’t have mentioned it if he mentions other legions specifically.  Harpoonman (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning with "Boudica's name was spelt incorrectly by Dio, who used Buduica" is just head-scratching. There was no standardised spelling at this time and it's transliterating it from another language entirely which makes it even more open to interpretation. Even the article mentions several ways her name are commonly spelled. And don't even get me started on how this spelling may have been altered by different scribes adding their own versions in in the years since it was first written. To approach a topic like this is just plainly unscholarly. 
The topic, if necessary at all, should just be part of a list of the various spellings of her name in history. ~2025-35201-27 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)