Talk:Second Punic War

message: : you have recently made a number of changes to the article, and when they were reverted, you have reinstated them, instead of discussing them first. Please set out your reasons for making the proposed changes here, and provide the sources that you would use to support them, so that other editors can consider them. Thank you. Girth Summit (blether) 14:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What Girth said. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: WP:CITEHOW indicates  (my emphasis). It then provides information about citing a reprint with the reprint year but only in terms of  (internal quotation marks removed). The edition of CAH2 8 is 1989, not 2006. That is why I changed it to 1989; there is no reason to mislead readers about a source's novelty when there were no actual changes. I ask you therefore to self-revert your revert of my change. Ifly6 (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Citing sources states, under "Dates and reprints of older publications", "Editors should be aware that older sources [...] are sometimes reprinted with modern publication dates. When this occurs and the citation style being used requires it, cite both the original publication date, as well as the date of the re-publication ... in the  and  templates [...] you use the |orig-date= parameter." This is what the article does. Note that the original publication date now shows immediately after the date of the reprint, so there is no question that it may "mislead readers about a source's novelty". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you say then to including 2006 as a textual note, per the alternative guidance there, and putting the actual date of the edition as the anchor year? My edition of CAH2 8 is from the original print run. I also think the guidance there is inapplicable, as it isn't a historical publication, which is what is being envisioned there; we are discussing identical reprints by the same publisher. There was discussion on this matter ages ago, as it isn't entirely novel, here. Ifly6 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The two comments at the discussion you link to both seem to be supporting my approach. The approach I adopt seems to be that universally practised with Harv cites and I am disinclined to add a textual note, which while allowed by the MoS seems rare to the point that I cannot recall ever having seen one. It seems to me that this is a matter which would be better taken up at MoS if you feel that current practise is inappropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think you're misinterpreting what the discussion says. The proposal there was to change the dating policy such that it uses , which in our case is 1989. It also makes a distinction between reprints and editions: CAH2 8 is a single edition with multiple printing runs that all have the same ISBN. The wording in the comments that follow discusses corrected reprints being treated as separate editions; the reprinting of CAH2 8 in 2006 was not such a reprint. I did request clarification at the time on the MOS talk – most commenters took the view of using the earlier date – and made a proposal to clarify existing policies, at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Identical reprints. Ifly6 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation years 

message: As per MOS:LEAD:
"It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on...............the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
Needs some restructuring. Rjdeadly (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Only last year this article went through FAC, where it was thoroughly reviewed and a consensus formed that it was "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." It would take quite a lot to create a stronger consensus for significant change. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article may have been reviewed in general, but I think no-one reviewed it in terms of the consistency with MOS:LEAD, and it's certainly not in a "nutshell" and delves into the details unneccesarily. Rjdeadly (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction far too long

message: This section is completely devoid of important events of this period particularly around Locri, and also Kroton, which is why I proposed some text. Rjdeadly (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There are reasons for that. But I am not opposed to some additional material on the area and period, nor to working with you to get something into shape. Anything proposed as a starting point would need to be fully sourced - obviously. As this is a featured article any proposed source would need to be "high quality" as well as "reliable", in particular this rules out the use of primary sources. If you would like to put a proposed sourced summary here, we could then discuss it. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

text: While I agree that these matters should be covered, I agree with Gog that they should be covered judiciously with reference to reputable, reliable, and modern sources. The archaeology of second and third century BC Italy has advanced dramatically through the 20th century AD; some book on the matter from 1849 will obviously not include discussion of any such archaeology. If you really want to cite the ancient sources, I would encourage citing them in parallel only when cited by a modern source and in modern format without Roman numerals; see eg Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed) §§ 9.67, 14.242ff. Ifly6 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy, 207–203 BC 

message: We should add something about the peace negotiations; they evidently dragged (or the ratification thereof did) into 201 BC. The article abruptly ends with Zama right now. Ifly6 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Rereading the first paragraph of Roman victory it seems to have an appropriate level of detail for an article covering the whole war. What are you proposing be added? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Any information on the negotiations themselves. By analogy, the last battle of WWI's western front was on 11 November 1918 but the peace treaty itself had to be written, ratified, etc which dragged long into 1919. Ifly6 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Both points understood. There isn't much more in the records to pass on. Do you have a HQ RS which covers this aspect in particular detail and which you would like paraphrased/summarised into the article? Or have - however rough and ready - your own suggested draft form of words to serve as the starting point for discussion? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly the two or three paragraphs in Briscoe's chapter in CAH2 (1989) pp 64ff discussing the aftermath of the battle and specifically attempts by the consul at Rome to oppose it before Scipio's supporters secured tribunician intervention. The specifics, as they are, are at Polyb 15.19; Liv 30.37.7–12, 30.40.7–16, 30.42.11–43.4. Further secondary material is in the same Briscoe chapter at pp 73–74 in the section titled "War and politics at Rome"; Drogula Commanders and command (2015) pp 298–99, especially n 4; a longer digression at Rosenstein "Sorting out the lot in republican Rome" in Am J Philol vol 116 (1995) p 52 n 32 (giving the story in Livy with some analysis). Ifly6 (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace negotiations