Talk:Titus Labienus

message: So it's unknown for sure what gens he belgoned to, but he's believed to be an Atius? Kuralyov 19:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An idea discredited sometime during the past century I bet, my modern sources don't say anything about that. Google finds , which seems like an awfully good modern source for a complete rewrite. Stan 22:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: The article says Labienus took command of the Gallic armies whenever Caesar went to Rome during his consulship, but Caesar never went to Rome.  He couldn't have; crossing the pomerium would have stripped him of his imperium, but even leaving his provinces during at all during his tenure would have been frowned upon (the meeting with Pompey and Crassus was at Luca, on the southern border of Italian Gaul, for instance). Binabik80 04:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesar in Rome? 

message: Which legion did Labienus command under Caesar? I remember hearing that it was the Tenth legion, but I don't remember the source. --maru   (talk)  contribs 03:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which legion? 

message: Wow, this is a really well researched and formatted article.  It really goes above and beyond; I saw no superfluous information and all the facts given seemed important and could be backed up with the proper citation.
My criticisms are few and mostly trivial.  The entire article was smooth and easy to read save the last couple sentences of the last paragraph.  I suggest a change to: "The Battle of Munda marked both the end of the Roman Civil War and Labienus's life.  Labienus, in charge of Pompey's calvary unit, saw King Bogud's (an ally of Caesar) army approaching from behind.  He ordered his calvary team to attack Bogud's forces, which was interpreted by the rest of Pompey's army as a retreat.  The confusion in the ranks started a rout, resulting in massive casualties, the death of Labienus, and the end of the Roman Civil War."  Feel free to alter or disregard this suggestion as you wish.
The only mechanical error I noticed was with the multiple use of the same footnote.  If you assign a footnote a name/value, Wikipedia remembers this and uses the same number for the same footnote.  You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once
All in all, this is a well written and thorough article.
199.74.101.136 03:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Rome Comments 

message: With the exception of Tyrell, the other "sources" listed are suspicious. No page numbers, no publisher, no publication date. How do we know they exist? How do we know if this article is not a hoax?Closedthursday (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very poor sources 

message: , the material that I removed may have a source, but that does not automatically make it worthy of inclusion in the article. The article openly takes sides in favor of one historian against unnamed other historians, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. I recommend that you read MOS:SAID if you have not already. This paragraph uses language like "points out" and "recognizes" to refer to the arguments that someone is making. This implies that what the person is saying is true and therefore impairs the article's neutrality. Because a historian on one side is named, those on the other side probably should be as well. And while the article may describe a dispute between them, it should not take sides.
In addition to the neutrality issues, the paragraph is also poorly placed. It is historiography because it focuses on historical debate rather than on the events themselves. That sort of thing generally goes in a separate Legacy section near the end of the article, so as not to interrupt the focus of the article.
If you want to take a try at reworking the paragraph to alleviate these concerns, feel free. But as it stands, it does not belong in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert