Talk:Gallic Wars

message: I think that Divico should be included in "Commanders and leaders" because he was very important person in Battle of Bibracte and leader of one of main tribe took part in this war Helvetii.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfaxx (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divico 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Gallic Wars's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Hans Delbrück":
From Battle of Alesia: Delbrück 1990, p. 504
From Hannibal's crossing of the Alps: Delbrück 1990, p. 303
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Gallic Wars]] 

message: ...for the claim that C. became notably wealthy after defeating the Gauls. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Found, in Gilliver. Through selling of slaves, and plundering cities. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source wanted... 

message: I believe that the orig-year parameter is not necessary for ancient texts, which were not originally "published" as we understand it. It is useless to direct researchers to a millennia-old manuscript. wikinights talk 04:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orig-year for ancient texts 

message: Pretty much the article for the Gallic Wars, which is much better written and places the events in their proper context. Nothing this article covers that the Gallic Wars don't already touch on Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose The articles cover different topics. This article is about Gallic Wars which itself is (arguably) not designated as genocide. The other article specifically covers systematic destruction and genocide of Gallic people by Roman war criminals. The right action to take is not merge them but to improve them. Madame Necker (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Madame Necker@Dunutubble Merged. Gallic genocide isn't independently notable. It had some sourcing problems. "Making sense of the senseless" by Chirot & Edwards doesn't even mention the Gallic Wars, Julius Caesar, Rome, or Romans. Madame Nekcer, you didn't provide a page for Kiernan 2007, so I had to go look it up and find the page number for you. I was lucky my library had an online copy of it. But my library does not have an online copy of Lash 2006, and you have not provided a page number. So all I have to go off of is one source. That is not enough to make the subject independently notable, especially considering that it gets barely one page in a 400+ page work. I have gone ahead and included the useful information out of Kiernan 2007 here under Historiography. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @CaptainEek You've merged the pages when there is a lack of substantial discussion for it. Along with your impatience to wait for enough time to have a definitive consensus formed, as apparent from your rashly action, I view your merger as a violation of the relevant Wikipedia policy, thus illegitimate. I also denounce your falsification of sources. Chirot & Edwards do describe the genocide, but you are attempting to spin it by stating they are not mentioning Gallic Wars. You are also ignoring dozens of reliable sources both in English and other languages about the genocide, available both online and offline. The righteous thing to do for you right now is to revert your merger and wait for an actual consensus to form. Madame Necker (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Madame Necker On what page do Chirot & Edwards mention it? Can you copy the relevant text here? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @CaptainEek Pages 15-16. You are still maintaining your illegitimate merger despite the lack of a consensus. You must revert it now. Madame Necker (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Madame Necker My bad, I do see the mentions now in Chirot & Edwards. Not very substantive I must say, its unclear which actions they're referring to. It provides very little detail, only mentioning the Eburones in passing. At any rate, that seems better covered at Eburones#Genocide (53–51 BC), so I've gone ahead and added Chirot & Edward's paper there. Lastly, no, I don't need to revert. Dunutubble proposed, I seconded, and I'd be somewhat surprised if someone else chimed in here. You don't seem to have a policy based reason as to why your article should cover the topic in a standalone form when this article can cover it with more context, and also prevent a WP:CONTENTFORK. I'll ping @Levivich though, perhaps he has some thoughts on the matter. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @CaptainEek I do have a policy based reasoning. WP:MERGECLOSE states that you should wait at least a week before closing a merger discussion. You waited only 4 hours. Your implementation of the merger is a violation of this clause. Madame Necker (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Gallic genocide]] into [[Gallic Wars]] 

message: Hey, small thing, but I made an edit to the assertion in the lede that Caesar declared himself dictator. Technically, he didn't; the Senate voted for it and elected him into the office of dictator perpetuo. Now, the Senate was filled with his allies in this period, so honestly they may be interchangeably (someone with deeper knowledge than me would probably have more to say about that). As I said in my edit summary, the page for dictator perpetuo notes this and says he was elected to the office. In my mind, it's probably best to have those two things consistent; you don't want to link to the page just for it to contradict this one.
I suppose I'm mostly just curious on everybody's thoughts on this. Delukiel (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Delukiel I believe I was inspired to write that line by the final line in Gilliver's book (before the epilogue) on page 88. She writes "He had the means by 50 BC to wage successful civil war and make himself dictator." So I interpreted that as declare himself dictator, but I guess "make" is the more technically accurate term? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @CaptainEek That makes sense, yeah! I think either "made himself" or "being declared" works just fine, so I'd just use whichever you think is better. Frankly, I barely know what I'm doing on Wikipedia, so I'll leave the choice to you. Delukiel (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaring Himself vs. Being Declared 

message: Henige is a specialist in African studies, and the citations all point towards a single minor paper of his, yet the article cites him extensively as though his thoughts represented the mainstream view, including a note under the main 'Casualties and losses' section. While the numbers are likely inaccurate, and the article should note that, the repetition of Henige's paper does not seem warranted or helpful. 137.103.149.109 (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Henige is not actually cited that extensively. The article is mostly built off the work of Gilliver, Henige is being used only to present a section on the historicity of the Commentarii. His name is present a lot because we are attributing the claims to him, because they are opinions. Now, I think they're quality opinions, Henige is a solid historical writer. Just because his specialty is African studies doesn't mean he can't write about other areas of history. If you have other papers that you think we should include, which contest Henige's perspective on the historicity of the Commentarii, please link them here. But I'm not in favor of reducing the mentions of his name, because then we're saying it in WP:WIKIVOICE, which assumes a certain fundamental truthfulness. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Agree with this 100%  Henige's expertise on this topic seems tangential at best, and may warrant a citation or two in the historicity section, and only after a consensus is reached. But beyond that, as you say, his is a minor publication, and is given far too much weight in this entry, and certainly doesn't warrant a need for him to be featured  in the introduction.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @HoundofBaskersville If folks could find some other quality, recent sources that tackle the issue, I could use them to reduce the reliance on Henige. But I'm not sure any modern writer is disagreeing with Henige's main point, which is that the Comentarrii are heavily biased in Caesar's favor. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is David Henige so extensively cited in the article? 

message: First of all I would like to apologize, it looks like this topic is talked out.  However, this map, although very interesting and likely represents substantial effort, places the Battle of the Sabis in the current Maubeuge area, where Napoleon III placed it in his work. The current Wikipedia consensus locates it at Saulizor. Is this a concern for anyone? Droopyfeathers (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign map of 57 BC.