Talk:Vercingetorix

message: Ive tried to edit this article 4 times and you keep reverting my edits. I'm a PhD and lecturer of European history! The only vandalism is the from the mod on a powertrip preventing me from improving this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.8.96 (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article's history no one has edited it since 26 April. I'm not sure why you're unable to edit the article. What changes did you have in mind? Nev1 (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He he. This made me laugh at least, so laughable is spot on. ;-) What was that edit you wanted to make then? You sure you tried on the English WP? Trigaranus (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This is ridiculous

message: :The next major battle at Gergovia resulted in a victory for Vercingetorix because Caesar was too anxious and had attacked instead of besieging and starving the city in standard Roman fashion. When Vercingetorix thought Caesar was in retreat (which he did not intend because it might have ruined his career) he abandoned the cautious tactics he had adopted before and attacked head on. Due to losses he had to retreat and moved to another stronghold, Alesia.
It's a bit confusing to me. -rayluT 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Antecedent 

message: There is a good image on the French site
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coin_Vercingetorix.jpg
Is it usualtocopy itto the encommons, or to link - (and if so, how is it linked?)
--Nantonos 12:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great Image, I've added it in. I don't know where is the best place to put it, but for the moment I've just stuck it in the History section. Thanks for finding the picture Nantonos. --Hibernian 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of text content that could be brought across (translated) from the French article too.  Google Translate tool can assist this.  --Peter Campbell Talk! 01:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images from other wiki sites 

message: I´ve just created my account and due to my lack of experience dare not touch the actual page yet, but someone could take the "YOUSUCkYOUSUCKYou SuCK" texts of the article. They appear at the moment between "History" and "memorial"
HraHattu 07:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that's just Vandalism (happens all the time), someone has already fixed it. --Hibernian 18:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inappropriate text on page 

message: the article states that [] is how it was pronounced in Gaulish... did Gaulish really have [] instead of [r]? --Krsont 03:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: Hope no one minds, I just added a touch to the introduction as that it seemed to need a few words to sum up the article a bit more. --24.20.118.184 00:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of Introduction 

message: While this is a good article, it seems to somewhat begin in the middle of an idea, almost as if it was clipped from an article about good ol' Gaius. This is completely understandable as that he really only exists in historic contexts as a foil to Caesar, but I suggest that perhaps we edit this by mentioning Vercingetorix from the get go.
::Isn't there anything we know about his early life as a Gaulish nobleman? This article seems only to jump in where Caesar crops up then follows his extremely short life from there. Would it not be better renamed to a more fitting title. Maybe something like The Rebellion of Vercingetorix? Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs 21:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Perhaps my french isn't as strong as I think it is, but I think the translation in the article can be improved as follows:
Original Text
Original EN Translation
Suggested EN Translation
:« La Gaule unie 
:Formant une seule nation 
:Animée d'un même esprit, 
:Peut défier l'Univers. »
:« United Gaul 
:Forming a single nation
:Animated by a common spirit, 
:Can defy the Universe. »
:« Gaul united
:Forming a single nation
:Moved by the same spirit, 
:Able to defy the Universe. »
Sorry to be picky; but it is a published article, after all. =P
--ross613 talk 02:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of French Text on Memorial 

message: I'm removing this tag. Reason: the tag in that location implies the whole article needs verification. Although you could not delete the whole article without consensus, nevertheless it gives the wrong impression. The article has references now. The 2009 situation is not true. Some of the article is referenced. Some I believe is accurate. You can of course dispute some of it. It seems to me more proper to place tags on specific statements you wish to dispute. You may also ask for clarifications or expansions. If it is unbalanced you can mark it as unbalanced. To leave the 2009 tag at the top is to invite an administrative deletion. I believe the article should be modified where necessary. The question is, will you do it?Branigan 12:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009 tag at top

message: FYI not involved in edit-war: simply desire to offer alternate functioning ref_links for broken proto-celtic etymology URLs under Vercingetorix#Name eg http://www.scribd.com/doc/61167870/An-Etymological-Lexicon-of-Proto-Celtic#scribd and/or http://www.wales.ac.uk/resources/documents/research/celticlanguages/englishprotocelticwordlist.pdf 
n.b. 
FWIW, historicity of cognates indisputable: ubiquitous v/b consonant shift links W.caucasian Slavic / Sorbian tongues with E.caucasian Soghdian via Syriac/Aramaic - think Greek hero "Paris"; "Parisi" tribe; Persian "Pharsi/Farsi" speakers and Varingian/Pharingi/Franci Pontic-Volga boatmen. Cultural hegemony is fluid, v.subjective across time and space; no modern ethnic hegemony ought be inferred. 
May I respecfully suggest a related pIE non-Latin alphabet example for "cingeto-" /protoCeltic 'kengo' : Uyghurjin: ᠴᠢᠩᠭᠢᠰ ᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨ ‎(čingis haan) Persian: چنگیزخان ‎(Čangiz-xân) or Ghengis Khan (Lord of the House of Khan, from Persian خان ‎• ‎(xân) meaning "inn," a hostel on the Soghdian Silk Routes, via Mongolian script derived from Roman era Aramaic-Syriac; with Asian 正 • ‎(Zheong, jeong) cognates meaning "5", ie cinq, symbolizing the perfection of (ie domination over) the '4" cardinal directions, a common conquest-patronym, see Ἀχαιμενίδης, literally 'lords of all they survey.' 
Indeed familiar English terms such as king from 'konig' (related Lithuanian 'kunigaikščiai' Chinese 王 Wang "King"  'ruler' vertical stroke superimposed over 3 horizontal strokes signifying Heaven, Men, Earth; similarly Greek Ξέρξης from Persian 𐏋 ‎[xšāyaθiya] whence Caesar/Tzar/Shah) and hegemony from 'hegumen' (Ukrainian Ігумен Georgian იღუმენი  Coptic- Aegyptos - Ⲕⲟⲙⲙⲟⲥ Al-Kommos Arabic غوميز gomes, whence perhaps Iberian 'Gomez', derivation of Greek Ighoumenos, meaning abbot or dean of a Byzantine Orthodox monastery; and rank of hetjman гетьман of Zaporizhian Cossacks under Ottomans) came down to us via this very same culture of encounter between groups acquiring a shared language in obeisance to whatever ritual contemporaneously prevailed, in an anthropology of subjective economic value at the margins, as proposed by 19th C sociologist Carl_Menger vs the rigid Prussian utilitarianism of the German Kaiser that metastacized into full-blown fascism in the century that followed.
  
MrsKrishan (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel sure that your suggestions are very good, but having read the above I have no idea what you are actually asking for! Could you explain more clearly and preferably attempt to get consensus for your proposed changes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 19 December 2015 

message: When was the first known use of the word "Vercingetorix" - wouldn't be surprise if the spelling "Vercingetorix" doesn't go back very far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.1.254 (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How far back does the spelling "Vercingetorix" attest to? 

message: Why not write: "This depiction is idealized and/or symbolic" even moreso under all the other article captions of Vercingetorix? - especially as they are much later dipictions. Why pick on the Gold sater showing a dipiction of Vercingetorix much nearer to when he was alive. Latterday Vercingetorix dipictions favoured by Francophones seem overly Germanic-like rather than Gallo-Roman.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.1.254 (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the source says about coins bearing his image. clpo13(talk) 22:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does it read: "This depiction is idealized and/or symbolic" under the picture of the Gold sater of Vercingetorix 

message: Vercingetorix's defense of Gaul, or France, should not be classified as a "revolt" because France and Rome were two separate nations at the time. A revolt occurs when people take up arms against their own government. In this case, Vercingetorix was defending his own country against foreign invasion. Even the Roman government recognized the sovereignty of Gaul until Caesar defied the Senate's order not to attack. Ctmuva2000 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Vercingetorix war against Rome began with him deposing his uncle Gobanitio, King of Gergovia. Gobanitio was one of the Gaulish chiefs who had submitted to Caesar. Therefore Vercingetorix's revolt was against both Gaulish and Roman authorities. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolt 

message: I was thinking of adding a section to the page about Aedilia Paullias, Vercingetorix's daughter, as there is no wikipedia article on her though she witnessed the invasion of Gaul by Julius Caesar. WVGman 11:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how much information is available on her; but if there is enough to make her notable, then it might be better to create a separate article for her. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aedilia Paullias 

message: "Vercingetorix was imprisoned in the Tullianum in Rome for almost six years before being publicly displayed in the first of Caesar's four triumphs in 46 BC. He was ceremonially strangled at the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus after the triumph. A plaque in the Tullianum indicates that he was beheaded in 49 BC."
These two sentences contradict each other. How about this rewording: "sources differ with regard to when he was killed.....However, a plaque...."? Dhalamh (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in death section