Talk:Julius Caesar/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Infobox

Digital Herodotus

This is ridiculous. Julius Caesar was known for most as a political leader and a military leader in Rome. Therefore, the specifically made Infobox for an office holder, to highlight both his offices and his military service, is the correct one to use.

Someone keeps re-editing the page to be a general persons Infobox, then just adding in the fields of offices held and military record. Why? There is literally an Infobox specifically made that already has those fields in it. It’s a useless and clunky and sloppy thing to do. Digital Herodotus (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see what it adds. The long list of battles is already detailed in the template at the end. T8612 (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see this as a major issue, but agree with Digital Herodotus that the office holder infobox is more suitable. Don't understand why anyone would oppose changing it, other than intransigence. Carlstak (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

As I already said, the office holder Infobox is there for pages about office holders. Why would this page have any other Infobox? Digital Herodotus (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• The Person infobox is better because its Office parameter takes up a mere two lines of space, whereas the Officeholder infobox uses a large box for each office. Officeholder is appropriate when the office is a defining feature of the subject, and when mentioning the officeholder's predecessor and successor might be of interest to the reader – such as the case of US presidents and senators. A Roman dictator has no immediate predecessor and successor, and Caesar's many predecessors and successors as consuls are irrelevant, so the option that takes fewer space in the infobox is to be preferred. Avilich (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Previewing a small change to a field in the infobox, I saw a big red warning that the template wasn't properly implemented, which should have been displayed to Digital Herodotus originally. Checking, I found we were saying that Caesar was "known for" his books, rather than his career, but that {{Infobox person}} would show them more appropriately as "notable works". I therefore embedded {{infobox officeholder}} into infobox person.
  But it turns out there's more to it.
  • Caesar's consulships are not the most interesting things about him, for example it was his military command after his first consulship that was important. His consulship was not, as it was for others, the pinnacle of his career and it was not holding that office that defines him in history or for Wikipedia.
  • The long list of his battles is not helpful to readers; we are not compelled to list here every battle on which we have an article.
  • We do not use {{infobox officeholder}} for everyone who's ever held office; some are famous for other things too or instead, some are sui generis, Caesar being one, and shouldn't be viewed only through that lens or shoehorned into that box. Wikipedia does not require us to use an infobox just because it's been created, any more than it requires us to complete every infobox field. Indeed, we have a great number of articles on Roman consuls but rarely use the officeholder infobox for them – and here we come to a more general point.
  • All but one of the articles about ancient Romans that I've found using officeholder as the primary infobox are ones where @Digital Herodotus: has switched them to the officeholder template in the last month or so: Julius Caesar,[1] Mark Antony,[2] Lucius Junius Brutus,[3] Gaius Marius,[4] Sulla.[5] and switching to DH's contribution history, I also see Pompey, Marcus Licinius Crassus, Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (son of Pompey), Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (Military service:- Allegiance: Rome, Branch/service: Roman army) and more. Do we need a more general discussion eg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome? NebY (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to refer to a general discussion at WP:CGR. We ought to be consistent across these articles, one way or the other. Ifly6 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I've opened a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Infoboxes for Roman office-holders asking if editors would like a more general discussion there. NebY (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

None of you are making real arguments as to why an office holder should not have the office holder Infobox, especially when those fields are being added anyway into the “person” Infobox used in the article. Also, Caesar’s terms as a consul (highest office in Rome) is indeed of importance and should be listed clearly in the Infobox. He was first and foremost a politician and military leader, why would he have anything other than an office holder Infobox? Digital Herodotus (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Riddle me this question then: What was the importance of Caesar's second consulship? What did he do in it? And most importantly, was the consulship the cause of his actions during it or was the consulship itself a consequence of his existing political position? If the consulship is what is important, I'd be happy to use the officeholder infobox. Moreover, why this focus on consulships? I think we ought to include his proconsulship in Gaul in Offices; would adding that, along with every single verbose entry for his consulships be too long? Ifly6 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

While I look forward to your response to Ifly6, I'll address your repeated assertion directly (perhaps at some point you'll engage with mine above) and illustrate the problem.

Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus
J. B. Hagenauer, Fabius Cunctator (1777), Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna
Consul of the Roman Republic
In office 233, 228, 215, 214, 209 BC
Dictator of Rome
In office 221, 217 BC
Censor of Rome
In office 230 BC
Personal details
Born	circa 280 BC Rome, Italy
Died	203 BC
Nationality	Roman
Relations	Fabia gens
Children	Quintus Fabius Maximus
Known for	Fabian strategy
Awards	Grass Crown Roman triumph
Nickname	Cunctator
Military service
Allegiance	Rome
Branch/service	Roman army
Battles/wars	Second Punic War

Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus
J. B. Hagenauer, Fabius Cunctator (1777), Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna
Born	circa 280 BC
Died	203 BC
Nationality	Roman
Known for	Fabian strategy
Office	Dictator (221, 217 BC) Consul (233, 228, 215, 214, 209 BC) Censor (230 BC)
Children	Quintus Fabius Maximus
Military career
Nickname(s)	Cunctator
Battles / wars	Second Punic War
Awards	Grass Crown Roman triumph (233 BC)

It does not follow that because Caesar held office and we have an infobox called officeholder, that particular infobox is the best choice for Caesar. History is more complicated, communication is more complicated and our work of building an encyclopedia that is of benefit to our readers is more complicated. We're concerned with the final product – what the infobox says, how convenient it is, whether it's misleading, excessive or ridiculous, and so on. If a template that is nominally appropriate from one perspective doesn't produce a good result, we shouldn't use it, just as we shouldn't try to fill all the parameters of a template if that produces bad results for our readers.

As an example (I wish it was a briefer example), here's the current officeholder infobox at Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus and below it the old one.

Editors will note the amount of space consumed describing his offices and the superfluous details that his military allegiance was to Rome and (anachronistically) his branch/service was the Roman army, all products of using the officeholder template. . NebY (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The first infobox is actually better looking, and doesn't seem all that cluttered, although it does contain some rather pointless fields, such as "nationality: Roman", "allegiance: Rome" and "branch: Roman army". Some of these are in both infoboxes—I suspect the real issue is trimming the infoboxes to keep them from filling up with minute and sometimes awkward-fitting details. I think the fact that Caesar was consul is worth reporting, since we usually have that in infoboxes about other consuls, even if for Caesar it was certainly not the most important office he held. I'm not sure it needs to list his predecessors and successors—most Roman consul articles do have a succession box, but it's usually at the end of the article. There certainly is a valid interest in keeping the infobox size to a reasonable length, and that probably means not including some things that would be included for other persons who held fewer offices or were simply less notable. But after all, this is one of the most notable persons in all of history, so I think readers would expect a relatively substantial infobox. P Aculeius (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Both infoboxes report his office, and nobody disagrees that they should be listed. The question is whether we need to use the 'officeholder' infobox, despite that taking up much more space, simply because he was an officeholder. Avilich (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The markup isn't significantly longer; just leave lines that aren't especially helpful to the article blank, even if they could theoretically be filled in. On the page they differ in length largely due to the little purple headers for different categories, which are actually helpful for locating information quickly when there's a lot of it (in short infoboxes they may not be very useful). So really there's not much space saved by preferring the 'person' infobox—the chief savings on the Fabius infobox is that when you edited it, you removed the picture, which is the same size no matter which infobox it goes in. But I don't think it helps the article to remove it—so that's probably not exactly what Fabius looked like; it's how an artist chose to depict him, and it gives the reader something to look at at the beginning of the article. It makes no difference to which infobox is preferable, though. P Aculeius (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The headers and the "In office" labels take up half the browser's screen in Fabius' case. So does the image, which, however, I have only moved, not removed. Avilich (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "half the browser's screen", unless you're browsing on your phone. The whole infobox is taller than the browser frame on my desktop, but that's not surprising with a lot of detail. You'll see similar graphics in a lot of graphics-heavy books, taking up one side of the first page of an article, although on Wikipedia it's more like a quarter. You might be thinking of the concerns I once mentioned to you about disinfoboxes—flashy but ultimately not very useful infoboxes that simply repeat the material from the lead or potentially take up more space, vertically, than the entire article. And that's a reasonable concern when infoboxes get long. But here we have a fairly detailed article about a major figure; an infobox should be a summary of information that might otherwise be scattered throughout an article, and there's no danger of the summary competing with or overshadowing the main body here.

Most of the same information will be in either infobox if trimmed judiciously; only the little category bars will be different, and they just don't take up enough space to be worried over—certainly not enough to outweigh the usefulness of categorizing the different items that go in the infobox. I fail to see any advantage to moving the picture out of the infobox; now instead of leading with a picture, the picture is stacked underneath the infobox in a separate box with a separate border of a differing width. Why not just keep it where it was? I realize we're discussing two different articles' infoboxes here, but the principles should be the same for both. P Aculeius (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some of these unnecessary "nationality" and "allegiance" parameters should be omitted. As to the possibility of summarising information scattered through an article, I don't see the need in this specific article to duplicate his battle record when we have an entire section in the article with a tabular display of his battle record. I agree with Avilich that it is a significant space savings, perhaps not "half the browser's screen", to retain the older(?) style of infobox which doesn't create unnecessary headers. Ifly6 (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

In the Fabian example to the right of this discussion, the first infobox looks to be something like eleven inches tall on my screen, of which about four are the image with its caption, and perhaps just over one consisting of all the headers put together. The last one might almost be dispensed with, as there's only one item under it that really has any business being in the infobox, and that probably could be omitted. Also the top one, for consulships, seems to be double the height of the others for no apparent reason. So really they take up a fairly small portion of the infobox, but they do make the information easier to navigate, IMO. P Aculeius (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I find the three separate blocks of offices painful to navigate; I have to leap between them to assemble a simple timeline, and the repeated "in office" lines between office and date make that even worse. The current Julius Caesar infobox has a much clearer Offices section that can be read as a single sequence. If we measured a man's significance by the offices held, allocating so many points for each, the office-by-office listing would make it easy to calculate a score, but it doesn't help us see his career. NebY (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

To address Ifly6, the point is that a consul was the highest office in Rome, and Caesar’s time there is important enough to mention in his Infobox. This is a major historical figure, and his Infobox should convey crucial details about him to a reader, especially one who might not know much about Roman history.

Others are mentioning space used, but an important figure like this should have a larger Infobox to reflect who he was. Listing out the important offices held and when he held them should be listed (in an office holders Infobox) as well as a detailed list of his military history.

The average user uses the Infobox as a reference point for the article to look up key info, like their birth date, and in this case, what offices they held. I also think at the very least a detailed list of the battles and wars he fought in should be there too as it makes it easier for the reader to keep track of all of them and when they happened and in which order. Digital Herodotus (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That literally doesn't engage with the point I made at all. If the consulship is the most important thing, as you seem to believe when you say "crucial details", who do you think was more important in the year 50? Gaius Claudius Marcellus, the consul of that year, or Gaius Julius Caesar? How about Gnaeus Pompeius in the same year, who at the time was a proconsul (putatively in Spain), compared to Lucius Aemilius Paullus?

If you can convince everyone that the most important figures in 50 BC were C Marcellus and L Paullus, the two consuls, I'll be happy to use the officeholder infobox template. Otherwise, it is probably undue weight to focus on consulships rather than the actual offices that most properly reflected political and military influence. Ifly6 (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The office holder template is not really adapted for ancient magistrates, as offices back then were often annual and collective. The goal was to avoid one office-holder from taking too much power. As a result, you often cannot summarise one man to a single office and have to list all his career, which make the infobox much longer than it should be. As often have said, for several politicians, the consulship was not particularly important in their career, but just a step, while their most famous achievements were done during proconsulships, which were not offices. This template is better adapted for modern politicians. T8612 (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

See Sleyece infra.

I've watched the Julius Cesar article since it was demoted from a featured article laughably be obstructed from any meaningful change to improve it. Any bold edits that I, or any other editor attempt are immediately reverted and then sent to the talk page to read a conversation about "bUt tHe AnCiEntS SaiD". I do not care. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Sleyece 1

Yeah, but Cesar WAS in office for a decade as Dictator, and his time in office was more akin to a modern officeholder. You're making an argument that the template does apply to this article, but you don't like the vibes. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The traditional dictatorship was an extraordinary magistracy. In the late republic it took on a character more of prior victory rather than meaningful office. It is a signal rather than an instrument; and, for moderns, it is too easy to confuse the two when an office today is instrument first. The idea of a continuous term suggested in the current infobox is also simplification for lack of space rather than fully accurate. The dictatorships that Caesar held were neither singular nor continuous. See Mark Wilson, Dictator (2021) p. 309. He was dictator for 11 days in 49, then waited twelve months elapsed before he was made dictator in October 48. This ran for a year until October 47 when it expired; six months elapse before he was made dictator again in late April 46. This dictatorship was then renewed annually in April until he resigned it February 44 to assume the perpetual dictatorship.

None of these specific dictatorship were important for the people who lived at the time or the ancient historians who later wrote history about Caesar. [H]is various dictatorships are barely mentioned [in the accounts]... What references there are, moreover, are uniformly incidental. Id. p. 310. Dio's narrative is most complete, even though he omits Caesar's fourth dictatorship, and he does not characterise the dictatorships as offices per se. Rather, his notices of each new dictatorship were bundled with lists of other honors... as if dictatorships were of no more note than any of the other binfuls of laurels being accorded Caesar after his defeat of Pompey. The other accounts did the same, thus, in the view of the ancient historians and biographers... [Caesar's] dictatorships... were incidental to the authority he possessed on account of being himself. Id. pp. 312–13. Ifly6 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

So, if Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson became President of the U.S. , should we not give him an officeholder infobox because he was in the "Fast and Furious" franchise? -- Sleyece (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Introducing "The Rock" into the conversation is a red herring. You don't engage at all with T8612's core contention, that ancient magistracies were different from "President". You don't engage at all with my reasons explaining why Caesar's dictatorship was different from "President". My position remains the same: if Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson became President of the United States and [H]is various dictatorships [presidencies] are barely mentioned [in the accounts] and in the view of the ancient historians and biographers... [Caesar's] dictatorships [his presidencies]... were incidental to the authority he possessed on account of being himself, then no, he shouldn't be given a specific officeholder template. Why? Because this ceremonial office is not what matters. Ifly6 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm just slapping you w/ a red herring because you had a goofball argument that was complete nonsense. You're defending the failed composition of a FORMER featured article. This article is literally worse due to recent changes. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Caesar
The Tusculum portrait, possibly the only surviving sculpture of Caesar made during his lifetime. Archaeological Museum, Turin, Italy.
Pontifex maximus (64–44 BC) Consul (59 BC) Proconsul (Gaul, Illyricum) (58–49 BC) Dictator (49–44 BC) Consul (48, 46–44 BC) Dictator perpetuo (44 BC)
Personal details
Born	12 July 100 BC Rome, Italy
Died	15 March 44 BC (aged 55) Theatre of Pompey, Rome
Manner of death	Assassination (stab wounds)
Resting place	Temple of Caesar, Rome 41.891943°N 12.486246°E / 41.891943; 12.486246
Spouses	Cossutia (disputed) Cornelia (m. 84 BC; d. 69 BC) Pompeia (m. 67 BC; div. 61 BC) Calpurnia (m. 59 BC)
Domestic partner	Cleopatra
Children	Julia Caesarion (unacknowledged) Augustus (adoptive)
Parents	Gaius Julius Caesar Aurelia
Occupation	Politician soldier
Awards	Civic Crown
Military service
Years of service	81–45 BC
Battles/wars	Siege of Mytilene Gallic Wars Invasions of Britain Caesar's civil war Alexandrian war

I believe this is the most encyclopedic way of displaying an ancient republic or direct democratic officeholder, but I'm open to any suggestions that would improve this article that avoid "WIIIIIIISDOM of the Ancients" nonsense. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Sleyece 2

Sleyece, as Furius pointed out, there is no consensus for your deletion of a majority of the infobox. This talk page provides no evidence of your putative Infobox Cleanup; Per Current Consensus. Re your info box at right (or above), merely moving the offices to the top and centring them adds nothing and obscures to an unknowledgeable reader that they are offices. It is also not what your edit does as your edit obliterates all mention of offices; nor is there any consensus for your proposed info box. Ifly6 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You can clearly look to the right of your screen and see what I prefer in terms of the Infobox. I was shortening a box there is no consensus for. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus to delete the info box. Ifly6 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Ifly6 Years from now the pathetic downfall of this article will be used for templates on what not to do with a featured article, and how not to edit a formerly featured article. I only attempt to edit Julius Cesar to test how many seconds it takes to be reverted, and to see if it's still being watched in a goofy manner by a number of editors. Remember, this article is currently a failure by Wikipedia's own standards. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want to edit the article constructively – there is, some believe, an article outside the info box – I doubt anyone will stop you. Ifly6 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The article was delisted because of rising standards regarding referencing in the mid-2000s. That (a) doesn't mean it was or is "a failure" and (b) has nothing to do with the infobox. 00:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Furius (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is substandard. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. How is it substandard? Ifly6 (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It is no longer a featured article, and any meaningful attempt to edit the article constructively, Infobox or otherwise, is immediately reverted. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

So you can't or won't point out how it is substandard and have reached this conclusion after two edits in which you deleted large portions of the info box. Ifly6 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been a persistent issue for several years. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to me that you have come here largely to be disruptive. You made two edits to the article. The first removed all mention of Caesar's literary works; the second deleted the majority of the info box based on a mendacious and highly tendentious reading of the talk page. You are now making unspecified claims that the article is substandard and that all constructive edits are (and will be) reverted.

I have seen no indications that all changes will be reverted. The list of offices that you first wanted to move around and later deleted? It was I who added it last November. Last year I added some 2000 characters on the modern rejection of "prosecution theory". If you want to make constructive contributions to the article that actually improve on it – the sourcing especially in the earlier sections is atrocious and impossible to parse due to the enormous jumbles of links – I think they would be well taken; if you make actual improvements and they get reverted I'll also defend them on this talk page.

What it seems to me is that instead you have decided to do nothing about the unspecified inadequacies of the article, lie about the consensus on this talk page, lie about how long you've watched the page (I've watched the Julius Cesar [sic] article since it was demoted from a featured article; your account was created on 20 October 2016 when the article was demoted in 2005) and content yourself with deleteriously deleting useful material from highly visible info boxes. A lot of work needs to be done on this page both to clean it up and also to turn it from a loose paraphrase of Suetonius into something that reflects modern scholarship. If you are interested in doing that, I can point you to some useful sources (Morstein-Marx 2021 and Meier 1982 are excellent). Ifly6 (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I was capable of reading Wikipedia before the start date of this User account. I've also edited this article a number of times over the years that I've been an editor with the same maddening result. The accusation that I've only ever edited this article twice, and am therefore a liar, is scandalous at best. That said, I'll take a look at the sources you mention, and make some cautious attempts at constructively editing the body of the article. I would like nothing more as an editor than a group of dedicated editors to return Caesar to at least the respectability of a GA. A Wikipedia where the article of Millard Fillmore is higher quality than a level 3 vital article like this needs positive change to start somewhere. Sleyece (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Weirdly story-like sentence

As a book-writer this seems weirdly like something you'd see in a book, and not in Wikipedia:

"Caesar was still deeply in debt, but there was money to be made as a governor, whether by extortion or by military adventurism."

It's... maybe it should be fixed?

Rockethead293 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It probably should be rewritten as far as the style is concerned, the information it contains however is basically correct though. Governorship were a standard tool of Roman elites to acquire personal wealth with extortion and military adventurism often being used (the former probably more than the latter).--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Clean up, 2023

Citations

First, to get this out of the way, the fact that https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html, https://archive.today/20120530163202/http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html#24, and its ilk are repeated in full every few sentences makes the Wiki text absolutely unparseable. I'm going through and replacing these with SFN-style citations. I am aware of WP:CITEVAR; this is a case where where readability is so badly damaged by the extremely long links that it has become extremely difficult to maintain the article itself. There are hundreds of citations each repeating something like:

Suetonius, ''Julius'' [https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html#24 24] {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120530163202/http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html#24 |date=30 May 2012 }}

That is 274 characters. A {{harvnb}} citation – {{harvnb|Suet. ''Iul.''|loc=24}}. – would take up just 29 characters.

It also does not help that many times the links cite the wrong thing: they call LacusCurtius (the name of the site) "Penelope" (the hosting platform) or "University of Chicago" (the hosting provider) or fail in some cases to provide any section numbers at all, just waving in the general direction of the relevant biography. This also persists to citations of Caes. BGall.: whoever wrote it just waved in the general direction of an entire book. There's one citation that points to books 4 and 5, which in LCL take up pages 181 through to 316. This is laughably vague. I've read the biographies – they are unreliable history but that aside – I'll go put in section numbers where they are obvious and missing.

There are other issues here. Large portions of the biography section ought to be tagged with {{primary sources}}; it is largely a synthesis dating from c. 2005 – in some portions misunderstanding those sources – which is based on four sets of sources: Plut. Caes, Suet. Iul., Cic. Att., and Caesar himself. There's one section which says that Caesar was a lucky and masterful general... cited to Caesar's own commentaries. Large sections need to be re-sourced with an eye looking at a high quality secondary source. There are also issues where some sections are based on blog posts and plainly unreliable sources. I have rewritten some short sections as well.

When the save occurs, there ought to be a massively large big red -10,000s on the history page. It will largely be removing duplicated URLs; there are two sorts, the duplicated URLs between citations and (the worse kind) duplicated archive URLs within the same citation for a live site. There will be some cases where basic factual errors are corrected. Ifly6 (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like c. 25,000 bytes of the page were just links to LacusCurtius and their duplicate archive links. Feel free to restore useful content that may have been inadvertently removed; going through it took about four hours and I'm sure there were a few mistakes here or there. I've gone to correct obvious ones – SFN errors and CS1 errors especially – as immediately possible. Ifly6 (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all of this. This is a massive improvement. Furius (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Dastardly piratical menaces

The story of Julius Caesar and the pirates seems fake, per Morstein-Marx 2021 p 62 n 118: True or not, it seems most likely to be a product of the (late) biographical tradition and there is no evidence that the story was even known or public in the late 70s. He cites Pelling's 2011 commentary (pp 138–41) on Plutarch's life, which I don't have on hand. Ifly6 (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if it is fictional, it would be wrong to remove it altogether, since it is an important part of the biography (like Alexander's taming of Bucephalus). I don't think the secondary sources are agreed that it is fictional, either. Several prominent ones recount it without question: Canfora, Julius Caesar The People's Dictator 2007 pp. 9-13 (acknowledging that the surviving account is elaborated and suggesting Caesar as the ultimate source), Badian in the Companion to Julius Caesar 2009. Morstein-Marx's "true or not" is a long way from actually denying the event. So, my preference would be to include it at roughly the length it is now and add a sentence stating that the event has been elaborated in the sources and that some doubt its historicity altogether. Furius (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll go this week to the university to find the relevant portions of Pelling in the commentary on Plutarch. If he thinks it is fake, I think the best thing to do would probably be to reduce it to a few sentences and explain instead the reasons for why the story was pushed. Ifly6 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Taking a trip to the old university library, Pelling believes the story is plausibly real, but is highly embellished. The later sources also exaggerate the sums of money involved and Caesar's reaction (20 talents becomes 50 talents, sold the pirates into slavery becomes crucified them all, etc). I think it's probably reasonable here to mention in one sentence that C was captured by pirates on this journey to or from "the East" – the sources don't agree on where he was going either – with a sentence of elaborations and then to move most of the details into notes. Ifly6 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That is very reasonable. I think the phrase "highly embellished" is very appropriate for the article too. Furius (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath of the assassination

The article is extremely long. What do people think of turning Julius Caesar § Aftermath of the assassination into just {{see|Assassination of Julius Caesar|War of Mutina|Liberators' civil war}} (links those articles: Assassination of Julius Caesar; War of Mutina; Liberators' civil war)? Ifly6 (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Especially given that it repeats the end of the previous section, this seems appropriate. In my opinion, the only fact from that final section that ought to appear somewhere in the previous section is the testamentary adoption of Augustus. Furius (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. I kept a very sparse few sentences for events including the funeral, which I think is important, and an appropriate minimum for the political situation that led up to his deification. Ifly6 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Abbott 1901

There are a number of dubious claims cited to Abbott 1901, which is a near-ancient book that in my view is not (or no longer) a reliable source. See also Talk:Sulla § Source reliability. I've noted them in the article with {{dubious span}}; though some of the errors are sufficiently basic I think they may lie in the editor that added it rather than Abbott's material. Nor am I convinced that we need an entirely separate section on Caesar's "constitutional" reforms which are really just ad hoc patches. Unlike Abbott, people today no longer believe that Caesar had some Grand Design™ to "put the republic to rights":

However, he had no plans for basic social and constitutional reform. The extraordinary honours heaped upon him by the Senate, nearly all of which he accepted, merely grafted him as an ill-fitting head on to the body of the traditional structure, creating an abyss between him and his fellow nobiles, whose co-operation he needed for the functioning and the survival of the system.

Beyond Abbott (or the reflection thereof in the page) being unreliable and replaceable with any number of better sources – Lintott Constitution (1999) comes immediately to mind – I think the section could be removed or integrated into the general narrative without any loss of amenity. Ifly6 (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The tenor of all my comments is that you should do what you think is best, since you're the one making the substantial effort to overhaul this article. I agree with the removal of Abbott.

I see what you're saying about the constitution, but I still kind of feel that a section is warrented - even if ad hoc and hodge podge-ish, there was a set of changes that took place. It's likely that people will come to this article looking for information specifically on how Caesar's position was defined constitutionally and on what Caesar changed about how the republic functioned; the article should make it easy for them to find that information. Furius (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(sidenote: like the other spinoff articles, Constitutional reforms of Julius Caesar is not great) Furius (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, a lot of the ancient under-maintained articles are not great. It does not help that a lot of them repeat obsolete falsehoods, but it seems that nobody has any appetite to do anything about them. Rewriting all of them would be a monumental task – I have a job doing other things – and just deleting them to stymie the damage seems too radical. Ifly6 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know and I certainly didn't mean to suggest that you should do anything about them. I honestly believe that as long as the article is there waiting for improvement, one day someone will - be it in 5 years, 10, or more than 20 (of course, in the meanwhile, 100,000 words will be written on the talk page about whether it should use BC or BCE...). Furius (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

What sort of coverage are you thinking re "constitutional reforms"? Off-hand, I certainly think the calendar is worth mentioning along with building projects but I don't think the Mommsenian Grand Design™ lives on in the modern scholarship. Eg Meier (1995) p 6: ¶ Modern scholars... have sought to evade the fatal alternative [Caesar went to war just for himself] by crediting Caesar with a superior statesmanly vision and a genuine cause... that he was standing up for Rome, Italy, and the peoples of the empire against a blinkered, self-seeking, and super-annuated senate, or that he wished to create a just and effective system of government and fundamentally renew the structure of the Roman empire. ¶ If this was so, Caesar said nothing about it, either at the Rubicon or subsequently, and no other evidence can be cited in support of such a view. On the contrary, it is clear that no one knew anything of it. None of the groupings in the civil war was moved by any such objective considerations.. Ifly6 (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Early life

I removed the portion relating to the Caesares at Bovillae. Badian 2009 p 14 calls it a fake: The attempt at archaizing spelling and the (inconsistent) doubling of vowels... give us an approximate date... L. Accius... the altar has had a disastrous effect in modern scholarship. Similarly, I have removed the portion on etymology – ibid at 13 – Ancient etymologies and explanations of the name [Caesar] are best ignored. Ifly6 (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there is also Early life and career of Julius Caesar (which I don't like). T8612 (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That article too needs an enormous about of clean up. I probably won't take a look at it any time soon, because this one here I think takes priority. I wouldn't, however, keep any of the original work there. I don't think there are any objections in principle to having these "Early life and career of ..." articles, but their proliferation really raises the problematic issue of maintainability. Ifly6 (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I personally think that this (Early life) article should not exist. "Early life" is vague and ill-defined: the article ends in 60 BC, by that time JC was already 40 years old; is it still "early"? Besides, most of the article just duplicates the information of the main JC article. However, there is some ground for creating separate articles on his consulship and dictatorships. The section The name Gaius Julius Caesar should go too. T8612 (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair. Discussion of the etymology of the name makes most sense at the article on "Caesar". Furius (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Gallic Wars

I'd appreciate any copy-editing or collaborative editing on the Gallic Wars. I never really cared for them and have tried to keep it as brief as possible while covering the major points; this is in part why I've used rather high-level sources for it. Perhaps it's because I'm much more WP:CGR than WP:MILHIST, but I personally find the whole matter rather boring and would have been satisfied myself with the vague single page in Boatwright et al Romans (2004) p 242 that, like Aug RG barely names any of Caesar's enemies. If anyone has anything well-sourced to add that does not unnecessarily pad the article, I would appreciate it. Ifly6 (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what is the right way to report this, but in the section "Caesar in Gaul", the sentence previous to last reads "Caesar won a major victory which forced their forced Vercingertorix's surrender;", which has the "forced x" repeated. Widget psz (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Just go and correct it; you saw it and should have the credit for fixing it. Ifly6 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is protected and I don't have the required creds to be able to edit it. Widget psz (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Edited with credits for your spot. Ifly6 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Civil war

The section on the civil war is really confused. Somehow the existing narrative confuses Cato – who wasn't at Thapsus – with Metellus; places Caesar's first dictatorship – before 48 BC because he was made dictator to conduct elections that he then won – after Pharsalus. Some of the text is just puffery. I am rather surprised and dismayed – if I were frank there are other words – that this has gone unnoticed since 2003 (Special:Diff/1756174; Special:Diff/1803691). I will look at this tomorrow. Ifly6 (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This has been taken care of (19 years 5 months 17 days later). Ifly6 (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Ceasar (disambiguation)

@Ifly6: Hi, I agree that there is no need to hatnote a misspelling, but in this case the hatnote to Ceasar (disambiguation) is for some (though probably not many) readers who are genuinely looking for "Ceasar", not for the misspelling. Otherwise they might get stuck at Julius Caesar with no easy way to navigate to their target article.——HTinC23 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason why "Ceasar" should redirect here if it has genuine uses. —Kusma (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

So, perhaps a request to move Ceasar (disambiguation) to Ceasar would work better than the hat note? ——HTinC23 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps. None of the things on that page is simply called "Ceasar" though, so perhaps the disambiguation page isn't actually needed at all. —Kusma (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps change Ceasar to Ceasar (disambiguation), given there would be no primary topic thereat? Ifly6 (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with this. If there are genuine uses for Ceasar it should not redirect to ol' Julius. Ifly6 (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both! I have changed Ceasar to Ceasar (disambiguation) for now. ——HTinC23 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ifly6: I prefer no primary topic for this case and thus Ceasar (disambiguation) should be moved to Ceasar. However, if there's a primary topic like Julius Caesar, Ceasar should point to it as a primary redirect. In neither case can the unqualified title point to itself with the (disambiguation) qualifier, see WP:MALPLACED. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

No objection to swapping them about. Ifly6 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Caesar's salad in legacy section

Julius Caesar "the conquerer of gaul" is also the person who the mouth conquering dish caesar salad is named after, this should be remembered as a eternal part of his legacy he brought prosperity to rome and protein to cooks. 2405:201:D021:E0DB:283D:8A30:C80E:83B4 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The Ceasar salad is named after its inventor Caesar Cardini Paul August ☎ 15:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Julius Caesar probably did eat a salad at some point in his life prior to assassination. That salad would have been "Caesar's Salad" -- Sleyece (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Could there be some truth to this?

Cornelis de Bruijn wrote in 1677, while having visited Naples and travelling back to Rome:

"Coming close to Pozzuoli, you can see an amphitheater or theater, as well as the ruins of the Temple of Apollo, and not far from there, the cave of the Sibyls. To visit the cave, one intentionally takes torches along. I found it to be about a quarter of an hour long, and at the end, there was a small chamber surrounded by a stone bench, with a kind of pedestal in the middle.

Once again, we set out to visit the hot baths which are naturally very hot. This heat also spreads to the nearby ground, burning the sand to a depth of about half a foot, so much so that one cannot keep their hand in it. Furthermore, on the mountain, the ruins of Nero's palace appear, and nearby, close to the seaside, there is still a remnant of Julius Caesar's palace."

I've tried to determine the place that Cornelis might have been referring too and my best bet would be this roman villa near Pozzuoli. But I have no clue or knowdledge to determine wheter there might be any truth to Cornelis his remark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoschA (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

legally powers

The text says "secured not by extraordinary magistracy or legally powers but by personal status". I suppose this should be "legal powers" or perhaps "legally exerting his powers", or some such construction. 82.15.39.58 (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Corrected. Ifly6 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Lede, 19 Nov 2023

@Rizzle685: Re this edit. First, there is MOS:LEADLENGTH, which this article is rather long on already. Additions in the lede really therefore should be highly selective and reflect only the most important topics. Second, see WP:BAREURL on this unspecific citation to Britannica. You should cite the specific thing there (or given there are no pages the section heading with metadata). Alternatively a book that covers the reception of the imperial period. Third, the lede is the summary of the article. That means that it reflects the body contents. There is no discussion of Qaisar in the body of the article, which is where it should go. I also think that the specific language of the received forms are unnecessary; that is material for the article body. Ifly6 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Put pronounciation speaker button for the Latin pronunciation

I think it would be helpful if this article had a pronunciation button (if that is what it is called) like Beyoncé, has this pronunciation button that you can click to see the pronunciation. I request that someone puts it in the article, but in Latin pronunciation not English. 76.64.181.63 (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"Gaius Julius Caesar others" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gaius Julius Caesar others has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31 § Gaius Julius Caesar others until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Terribly written article

Of the thousands of articles I've read on Wikipedia, this is the worst written by such a large margin that no other article comes close. Alas, I cannot edit it. Is it coincidence that it is a "protected" article? Ymisyd (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ymisyd: Cheer up mate. It's only semi-protected. If you make 10 edits elsewhere then the joys of editing this article will become available to you. This level of protection is only to stop passing vandalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on where or how this article can be improved in your opinion? UnbearableIsBad (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've corrected numerous grammatical and spelling errors. It reads a lot better now. Ymisyd (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Caesar's Comet

I'm unsure whether it's been mentioned in this article before, but there should be _some_ mention of Caesar's_Comet. Having the possibly brightest comet event in recorded history widely linked to you is notable. --31.111.54.229 (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

done. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Roman coinage and the Flaminius stater

@Tallis40: We've been, it seems, in a dispute as to whether the coins minted in 44 are the first time a living Roman showed up on Roman coinage. The consensus in the scholarship is not that this is the first time a Roman minted a coin with his own visage. It is that it is the first time a Roman did so with the intent of circulating that coin in Rome at the mint in Rome: Roman coinage means more than "minted by Romans wherever they are". The context of minting your own face in Rome is clearly political re the fall of the republic and is rightfully emphasised in the reliable sources. Ifly6 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, the coins of Sulla (and Marius too, at right) which depict them as person on chariots don't count. I am aware of both coins' existence. These coins do not really portray anyone. The triumphator on the chariot is an abstraction which is pointed as a person only by the inscription. If the inscription weren't there it would be associated with the triumphator only by the time when it was issued. Ifly6 (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Furius: I think you left similar remarks here. Ifly6 (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I've edited to the following: Similarly extraordinary were a number of symbolic honours which saw Caesar's portrait placed on coins in Rome – the first for a living Roman Ifly6 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Link to Main Article - Assassination of Julius Caesar

Where should the link to Assassination of Julius Caesar be located? I just added it directly under the Assassination header but then saw it was already linked later under section 4.3 Conspiracy and death. The Vital One (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This might be seen as OR but… (Julius Caesars birth/death)

I checked solar eclipse dates and they appear on 45bc (Plutarch mentions one at Ceasars death) and not in 44bc (atleast not during daylight)… I honestly think he was born 102bc and died 45bc. (Aged 56 as Plutarch writes).

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-0099-0000.html

^ this has the dates of solar eclipses… most bc historians also agree Caesar was 56 when he died than 55.

Notice this 45BC time; -0044 Apr 29 08:38:41 is very close to the ides of march. 94.198.175.173 (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Synchronism of important events with astronomical phenomena is a common literary trope in ancient sources. Their presence or absence does not override the considered judgement of generations of classical scholars. The best modern sources place his birth on 100 BC, consistent with all ancient accounts; he died on 15 March 44, consistent with all ancient accounts. Ifly6 (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You should also be aware that the Roman calendar is not the same as the proleptic Julian calendar which is used for astronomical observations. Dates need first to be converted from proleptic Julian to correspond to the dates commonly used. The value –44 (Julian) corresponds to 45 BC because there is no Year zero. The two eclipses that occurred in April –44 and –43 were observed ... in the south Pacific ocean and Argentina, respectively. They were partial and annular as well. Ifly6 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would not associate differences in era notation (−44 is equivalent to 45 BC) is not associated with observed vs. proleptic Julian calendar; either notation can be used with either calendar. I believe 94.198.175.173 has correctly allowed for the various notations. What is at issue is that the date stated in contemporaneous accounts, 15 March 44, cannot be reliably converted to the proleptic Julian date; the proleptic Julian date could be a few days earlier or later. This is because of mistakes made by the Romans in the 1st century BC in the implementation of the Julian calendar, and insufficient historical records to precisely undo the mistakes. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems correct. I think I skimmed -0044 Apr 29 ... ides of march to refer to 15 March 44 BC rather than as the IP correctly notes, the previous year. These eclipses are regardless not observable from Rome or even much of any part of the known Roman world. Ifly6 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What about Mercury eclipsing the sun? Is there a way to check dates for BC?

To the person who said there was only the comet - what about “obscuration of the suns rays”.

I don’t think the idea I have going is completely dead… I checked for Venus and no luck. Mercury didn’t show BC dates. 94.198.175.173 (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I meant transit. 94.198.175.173 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The transit of the Sun by Mercury or Venus would be hard to observe from Earth without special equipment, because the planet would only obscure a small part of the Sun's area. I don't know if there were any observations of these transits before the invention of the telescope. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough… last thing I found was on stellarium…

-44/03/30 - 17:15:00 - the moon is possibly blocking the suns rays. - Location is Athens too. 94.198.175.173 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Throughout the whole day the moon is blocking the suns rays.

45bc/March/30th that is. - Athens. 94.198.175.173 (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That's impossible. It's such an outlandish claim that there is no way to know what to look for around that date. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean to say, see on stellarium (software) and you can enter the date on here. It will show where celestial bodies are positioned on the date and you can enter the location too on it. I’ve never observed when the moon is close to the sun by eye to see if it blocks sun rays but I thought this was possible unless anyone knows for sure it doesn’t because the moon is infront of the suns rays and perhaps this blocks sun rays visually. If I’m wrong then I am. 31.94.30.239 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ifly6 (talk · contribs). Also, the explanation of the eclipse maps allows one to understand that the eclipse of April 29, 45 BC, was visible in Antarctica, Australia, and the ocean in between. So people in Europe would have been unaware of it. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it is now known almost for certain that Julius Caesar died on 14 March in the Julian calendar. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar#Leap_year_error for why it was uncertain until very recently, and see https://www.ancientsociety.com/rome/when-did-julius-caesar-die-its-wasnt-on-march-15th-after-all/ (perhaps) for a reference to the recent research that established the date precisely. What we call the Julian calendar wasn't correctly implemented until after Julius Caesar's death. Until recently we didn't know precisely how the transition from the incorrect Julian calendar to the correct Julian calendar was managed. But now we do. Lingvano (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The astrological event that accompanied Caesar's death was a comet, not an eclipse. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't date ancient Roman events under the proleptic Julian calendar. We date them based on the Roman calendar in force at the time. Eg Pharsalus occurring on 9 August 48. This is because sources, such as Livy or Cicero's letters, themselves include day-level precision under their system. The day 15 March also had special significance for the conspirators in symbolising the republic, viz, it was the day prior to the change in 153 BC on which consuls used to be inaugurated. Ifly6 (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The ancientsociety.com is not a peer-reviewed scholarly publication, so is not fit to be cited in Wikipedia on a controversial historical topic. See WP:IRS. It also quotes from the late User:Chris Bennett, who contributed to our article on the Julian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this entire discussion is being sidetracked by the factual question of whether any eclipses occurred. On reflection, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether any reliable sources argue Caesar died in some other year or date than is universally recorded. They don't. Even if it did such a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim would require extraordinary evidence. It shouldn't be included. Fin. Ifly6 (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)