Talk:Caeso Quinctius

message: In other news, the #Bibliography is part of the #References. No idea why the editor in question would revert such an obvious improvement, but presumably there are other pages that need fixing (fix them) or is annoyed at the filiation issue. ( does not override foundational policies like using straightforward English and leading with common English names.) — LlywelynII 22:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't news.  It's not even a fact.  You may consider it "such an obvious improvement", but it's not obvious to Wikipedia and it's not a policy.  Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Notes_and_references doesn't say anything about bibliographies being a subheading of references.  The example picture for this policy even shows them as separate sections, labeled "notes" and "references" (although what they're called varies from one article to another).  You're attempting to impose your own preferences on the article structure and present them as official Wikipedia policy, and that's just not so.  And since you made a whole section just for discussion of this issue, it doesn't make a lot of sense to bring up other issues and argue that I should leave your changes alone and go work on other articles, or that I'm motivated purely by angst at other edits you've made, or that I'm violating policies that aren't even at issue here and weren't relevant to the other issue either.  The change that this section is about isn't supported by any policy; it's your personal preference.  And there's no particular reason to use a more complex hierarchy.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: If there's really a brood of historians circling around this page... um... fix it. The historicity of Livy's entire account of L. Quinctius Cincinnatus is sometimes questioned and Caeso's trial in particular has been generally believed to be a fabrication or legendary embellishment since at least the 19th century. There's nothing on this page that raises that (major) issue at all. You can shunt the filiation into a name section but that's neither here nor there compared to representing a possibly legendary figure as a historical figure (and "major" one at that). — LlywelynII 22:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Maintaining a neutral point of view (which really is Wikipedia policy) means not asserting that the entire narrative is "legendary" as stated by your edit, or deleting details that are almost universally accepted, at least within the limits of possible historical doubts.  Forsythe may doubt that any of the events in this article occurred, and that's his right.  But it's just his opinion, not accepted historical fact.  I added a section addressing historical doubts, and if I've misstated Forsythe's opinion, feel free to revise it.  But most sources treat the narrative as if it either did happen or could have happened.  Forsythe shouldn't be cited as the primary source for the article, when really Livy and Dionysius are the sources for the narrative, while Forsythe is commentary and criticism on those sources.  Nowhere does the article say that Caeso was a "major" historical figure.  But the events concerned with him, his trial, and the aftermath do occupy a considerable amount of space in the ancient historians, and are worthy of discussion.  You can't simply delete parts of that narrative (such as a description of him, or his relationship to his father) because Forsythe doubts his existence.  P Aculeius (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article improvement