Talk:Boudica/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections on the uprising be split into a separate page called Boudican Rebellion. Considering the fact that this a highly notable revolt I find it strange it doesn't have an article of it's own. Flalf^Talk 06:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've created Draft:Boudican Rebellion out of that section. Flalf^Talk 06:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Gonna wait 24 hours until splitting considering there hasn't been any response on the talk page, if there is any opposition let me know. Flalf^Talk 14:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've split the article out, see Boudican Rebellion. Flalf^Talk 04:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Londinium

My deletion, with reasons given, a couple of days ago was reverted. After a brief vist here I find myself on this talk page. Reason 1: To me it is 'obvious' that London gets its name from Londinium. This is an encyclopedia where a certain level of intelligence and simple common sense is to be expected so stating the obvious is unnecessary. Others may disagree. Reason 2: It is questionable (not contraversial as stated in the reversal) that Londinium is modern London. What modern London is, is not clearly defined anyway, making the link even more tenuous. What are we talking about? The City; Inner London, Greater London; the Greater London Conurbation or whatever else? Reason 3: To say that Londinium is modern London, without a citation, is therefore original research. I can see how at first glance my shorthand 'OR' could have been read as the word 'or' in capitals so that could have been better expressed I suppose. Anyway, I think my removal should be put back or the phrase should be reworded. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I consider myself an intelligent person and I have never heard the term Londinium. What might be common knowledge in your circles is an obscure fact in others. This is after all a global project with readers from around the world.

As for how well defined modern London is, that is beyond my forte. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The article City of London#Origin talks about the history of Roman Londinium and how it relates to what is now the city, citing Late pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA) (Leslie Wallace, Cambridge University Press, 2015), though I'm concerned that citation only verifies the later claim that there was no pre-Roman settlement in this location. In my view, one of the best explanations can be found by visiting the Museum of London and watching some of the exhibitions there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This is common knowledge to people who got their education from comics :) —Kusma (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2021 and 6 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Obfuscatiion. Peer reviewers: SpencerPaddock.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Head of Nero

This edit removed a passage suggesting that a bronze head of Nero was removed from its statue during the insurrection, pointing out that: "theory unsupported". Yet the reference, also deleted, reads: "[…]the balance of probability is that this provincial bronze statue of Rome’s fifth emperor was toppled and decapitated during the Boudiccan Revolt of 60/61.". Surely that's enough to sustain it in the article, albeit with some qualification, if that's thought necessary. I'm minded to reinstate this--AntientNestor (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, go for it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Also at Boudican revolt.--AntientNestor (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The full version of your quote is: “Whatever its original location, context and significance, the balance of probability is that this provincial bronze statue of Rome’s fifth emperor was toppled and decapitated during the Boudiccan Revolt of 60/61.” This does not appear to be either an endorsement of the theory that the bronze came from Colchester, or of the theory that it is an image of the head of Claudius. I would question whether balance of probability is a valid reason for keeping this in.

The head was first displayed at the Society of Antiquaries in 1908. In 1914, it was “supposed” that the “large bronze head, closely resembling Claudius”, had probably been “torn from the Temple of Claudius … by British pillagers” during the Boudiccan Revolt. This would appear to be where the dot-joining began. A study by Russell and Manley in 2013 concluded that, on the contrary, the head looked nothing like Claudius and probably had no connection with Colchester.

Russell & Manley, whose words I quoted in the edit summary, said in 2015: “The previously commonly-accepted idea that the bronze head of Claudius, found in 1907 near Saxmundham, was ripped from a statue in Colchester during the Boudican uprising is now classified as a theory unsupported by any evidence. (British Museum artefact notice; see also Russell, 2006; Russell and Manley, 2014).”

I think these are good enough reasons to cast this story overboard, if you have no further objections. 194.81.226.132 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

To spell that out a little more, our article's "which had probably stood in front of the temple was decapitated and its head taken as a trophy" isn't supported by the source. Russell and Manley consider whether it might have come from Colchester (plausible locations within which include in or in front of the temple of Claudius) along with other possibilities, but conclude only that "the balance of probability is that this provincial bronze statue of Rome’s fifth emperor was toppled and decapitated during the Boudiccan Revolt of 60/61" without saying where that happened or that the head was taken as a trophy. We could say that a bronze head found in Suffolk may have been struck from a statue of Nero at this time, or that it probably was, but not that the statue was in Colchester, which would be implied if we left a corrected sentence in the paragraph about Colchester without qualification. NebY (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not "cast the story overboard" but "retain it with qualification", then.--AntientNestor (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

But where? In this article, it doesn't fit into the linear narrative but could perhaps be added to the 21st-century part of the Legacy section, saying that the British Museum has a head found in Suffolk, probably struck from a statue of Nero during the revolt. Boudican revolt is also a linear narrative and doesn't seem to offer such an opportunity. NebY (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The article is very much a linear narrative but the "head of Nero" sentence could still remain with "Colchester", where it's the best fit, but enlarging on the possibility that it could have come from some other stage or location of the uprising.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Fitting it into the Colchester narrative implies that that's the probable story of the head. I recommend reading the entire source to understand how unsafe that conjecture is and that it is not one which we as Wikipedians are justified in following contrary to our source. Besides, we don't even need it to describe the progress of the revolt; that's amply clear without it. The most we need to do is to describe it under Legacy as a likely relic of the revolt. NebY (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the source, taken as a whole, expresses doubt about the original location (my original post only quoted from the summary). It's an important artefact from the rebellion so I suppose that it wouldn't be out of place as legacy in ===21st Century===, with some context included. Although I brought this up, I'm reluctant to do it myself: it needs a fresh take now.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Afterthought: It's more relevant on Boudican revolt than here: in the context of this account of her whole life it's not significant.--AntientNestor (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point! OK, I've removed it from this article. In Boudican revolt, I've moved rephrased mention of it to a new section "Relics", titled in the hope that we might have more relics we can mention but in preference to "Legacy" which really might promise more than we're delivering; indeed, offering one bronze head as the sole legacy might even seem contemptuous. NebY (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. AntientNestor (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Battle location

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)

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)

Sources, points of view

"We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. [] All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources." (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 Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). We prefer newer secondary and tertiary sources to older - see WP:AGE MATTERS - and Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. (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) corrected 12:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)