Talk:Boudica

message: A recent edit states: "The last known location of the Roman army was north Wales whilst Boudica's army's last known location was Hertfordshire and so according to a historian, the final battle place of Boudica could have taken place anywhere between these locations." 
These statements are not correct. The last known location of the Roman army was Londinium, not north Wales. Tacitus stated that, when Suetonius on Mona (Anglesey) heard of the uprising, he "went through the midst of the enemy to Londinium". ("At Suetonius ... inter hostis Londinium perrexit.") "Suetonius went to Londinium" meant "Suetonius with his army went to Londinium". It did not mean "Suetonius leapt on to a horse and galloped off to see what was happening, leaving his army behind to catch up later." (In the same way that "Caesar conquered Gaul" obviously meant that Caesar conquered Gaul with his army.) So when Suetonius arrived at Londinium, it was with his entire army, other than the men who were left to garrison Mona, and when he withdrew from Londonium it was with his army. 
It may also not be stated as fact that "Boudica's army's last known location was Hertfordshire," by which Verulamium is presumably intended. Suetonius would have had no need to march his army back up Watling Street, and it would not have been sensible to do so. This assumption appears to be based on a combination of misreading of the Latin text, which is admittedly vague, and on previously expressed opinions that because Verulamium is mentioned third in a list, it must have therefore been Boudica's third target. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this assumption. Tacitus gives only a brief summary of events, which are not necessarily in chronological sequence, and he does not say that Boudica's army was responsible for destroying Verulamium, only that it happened. If the rebellion was spreading, the attackers at Verulamium could equally have been local tribes. So it appears not to be correct to state that the final battle "could have taken place anywhere between" north Wales and London. 
I offer these thoughts for discussion and consensus. The author may also wish to contribute further comments. 194.81.226.132 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not up to us to interpret Tacitus, dismiss Dio, or judge what would be sensible strategy. See #Sources, points of view below. NebY (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle location 

message: (Wikipedia:Five pillars)
*Shortcuts to relevant policies and guidelines include WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE.
*In short, we don't use self-published books, blogs and websites (WP:SPS). We try to avoid relying on primary sources and  (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). We prefer newer secondary and tertiary sources to older - see WP:AGE MATTERS - and  (WP:RSEDITORIAL)
Consequences for this article, Boudican revolt and Defeat of Boudica include
*We should look to modern scholars writing reliable sources to track the movements of SertoriusSuetonius and Boudica.
*We should not prioritise an archaeolgist's off-the-cuff remarks for a news report, pouring scorn on a local councillor's idea that relics of the battle will be found in a Birmingham construction site, either.
*We should treat the postulations of Richard Williams Morgan#St. Paul in Britain and Owen "Morien" Morgan as unsupported WP:FRINGE. They're interesting to a historiographer such as Martha Vandrei, writing in "Queen Boudica and Historical Culture in Britain: An Image of Truth" about representations and uses of Boudica (see also her short History Today article Queen Boudica, A Life in Legend and her discussion of them could have a place in our Boudica#Legacy and legends section, but they are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. I recommend reading our articles about them for further background on their motivations and inspirations and on their current reputation, or Prys Morgan's "From a Death to a View: The Hunt for the Welsh Past in the Romantic Period" in The Invention of Tradition (ed Eric Hobsbawm & Terence Ranger) for an engaging introduction to the preceding movement.
*We must not insert our own assessments into aticles in Wikipedia's voice ("although from reading Tacitus it seems unlikely", "plausible suggestions") - that too requires a WP:RS.
*We should remain mindful of the reader; if we present a dense paragraph describing a main theory followed by bullet points of the claims advanced in the magazines of local historical societies, many readers will jump to the bullet points. NebY (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this thoughtful critique of the way the article is developing. The piece seems no longer to comply with WP:UNDUE and it needs someone with a sound, balanced knowledge of the topic to put it right.--AntientNestor (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I wanted to start on the talk page, but there's a lot we can do to improve this as a Wikipedia article by following Wikipedia's principles and practices.  NebY (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, points of view 

message: I know the Boudica pronunciation took over some time ago, but at a certain point, the modern pronunciation for Boudicca with the soft 'c' was used. Can someone add this in the IPA bit?Halbared (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Boudicca pronunciation 

message: The source supporting the deleted text was a BBC radio news report concerning Roman remains found in  Birmingham. An archaeologist was quoted as saying "We know the Roman Army was coming down from Wales." It therefore appears that the last-known location of the Roman army was not thought to have been north Wales. The archaeologist was also said to have commented that the battle could have taken place anywhere in between. An off-the-cuff comment in this context would not appear to qualify as quotable information from a published source. 194.81.226.131 (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. (It's also disturbing that a Birmingham councillor assumed Roman remains = Boudica's last battle, and that he had the PR clout to get it on the BBC.) As the only WP:RSs in that para didn't support it, I've pulled it, allowing us to lose the subheads. NebY (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  North East Wales theory 

message: This is stupid 2A02:C7F:9B35:5800:E851:2A60:2B10:AF06 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bioligy 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree; keep the salient points only here. There's also lavish treatment at Defeat of Boudica.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

text: 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. '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)
replies: text:  Great idea! Do want to be bold go ahead with the merge yourself? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd need a proper merge discussion. NebY (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, that's what I meant. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, long overdue for a merge and delete IMHO. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Revolt article

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Still in progress ... Peaceray (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Peaceray (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: It seems unnecessarily redundant to repeat the full citation for "Hingley & Unwin 2006" 15 times. This is why  &  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Still in progress ... Peaceray (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Peaceray (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant citations for "Hingley & Unwin 2006"

message: 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:
*
I will include links to the pages in the  template. Peaceray (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dio's ''Roman History''