Talk:Julius Caesar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Julius Caesar is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 24, 2004.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2015[edit]

Please remove Cleopatra from the list of spouse(s) on the info box on the right-hand side. While Cleopatra was a lover of Caesar's, she was never his wife or official spouse since he was married to Calpurnia at that time. Cleopatra herself was officially married to Ptolemy XIII and then Ptolemy XIV during her relationship with Caesar. 66.117.129.3 (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


I have a related comment. The article contains the statement "Caesar and Cleopatra never married, as Roman law recognized marriages only between two Roman citizens."

The wording of that sentence is misleading in implying that there would have been a marriage if not for that law. That seems very unlikely for a large number of reasons (and anyway to imagine what might have occurred without the law is unsupported speculation). Better to shorted it to just "Caesar and Cleopatra never married." IBrow1000 (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@IBrow1000: That still implies that they would have married. "Caesar and Cleopatra were not married."? Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Zwerg Nase: I agree that flows better into the following sentence of that paragraph. I am going ahead and making the edit. IBrow1000 (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Abbott[edit]

I am seeing references to an Abbott as a reference, but this isn't explained anywhere, the first time it is mentioned in the article, the full reference should be supplied. I assume this is a reference to History of Julius Caesar by Jacob Abbott, but I can't confirm it. Those references should be cited by the full reference at first or removed if it can't be confirmed. Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a blind guess here, but Frank Frost Abbott seems a more likely candidate. I'll take a trawl through the article history, see if I can find the work cited (could be one of several). Haploidavey (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI, the relevant diff. An editor (who seems no longer active here) seems to have bolted on part of Wikipedia's article on Roman Constitutional (?) History, while omitting that article's supporting sources. And thus has it been ever since... so will fix this article's refs accordingly. Haploidavey (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Though it's now as should be, I've a doubt or two over its use as a source in our article, purely on the grounds that scholarship on Roman Constitutional history (and Caesar's role in the same, of course) have likely moved on a tad since the 1900's. On google-scholar, modern scholarly works neither cite nor appraise Abbott, fwiw. No, wait a bit. A couple cite him, but for works other than this. Haploidavey (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Massacre of the Usipetes and Tenchterhi[edit]

So why exactly isn't Caesar's massacre of the women and children of the Usipetes and Tenchterhi mentioned here and our article on the Gallic Wars? This is a whole lot harder to ignore with all the media coverage of this massacre in various media outlets (for example [1], [2]–the latter referring to the event as "genocidal").

We should be vary wary of this sort of exclusion. It's unfortunately typical of Wikipedia's coverage of figures important in Western history. For example, until fairly recently there was no mention of the particularly nasty elements of Charlemagne's (massacre, religious warfare) and Hernando de Soto's legacies on their respective articles (actually, the de Soto article still seems to have been written by a tourism agency). :bloodofox: (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Typo[edit]

Looks like there's an accidental "Piny the Elder" in the text. Apologies for any procedural cock-ups, I'm not a frequent contributor. 2601:646:8200:C050:CFEA:74E7:B745:90CC (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Presuming you meant the one in the Julius Caesar#Health and physical appearance, Yes check.svg Done. And thanks for catching that. Cannolis (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2016[edit]

Add in (Personal life, Health and physical appearance of Julius Caesar) a new research published on Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology "Celiac Disease Could Have Been the Cause of Caesar's Epilepsy." Giulio 1987pascal (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)http://journals.lww.com/jcge/Citation/publishahead/Celiac_Disease_Could_Have_Been_the_Cause_of.98260.aspxGiulio 1987pascal (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

In 2016, academic student Imparato F. published the article "Celiac Disease Could Have Been the Cause of Caesar's Epilepsy", arguing that atypical form of coeliac disease can rightly be included among the possible causes of the Emperor’s ailment. Indeed signs such as “ Very pale man of notable thinness, affected by alopecia”, giddiness, recurrent headaches, depression and obviously epilepsy, (description handed down by Plutarch and Suetonius), may also fall outside of apparent gastrointestinal manifestations, in 10% of patients with coeliac disease. Therefore, Imparato F declares how it’s difficult for neurocysticercosis and strokes explain an inherited event, and for the latter, placate with typical Mediterranean diet, based on spelt, bread and cereals.

See Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology:Celiac Disease Could Have Been the Cause of Caesar's Epilepsy. Imparato, Fabio.doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000558

Giulio 1987pascal (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Your request doesn't specify how you think the text should be changed. Try searching epilepsy in the talk page archives (see top of page). It's far from certain (even highly unlikely) that Caesar had epilepsy or any other major health problem. Statements by ancient sources are not grounds for diagnosis, let alone prognosis, at a distance of 2,000 years. Please also read Julius Caesar#Health and physical appearance, which imho is already overburdened with such theories. Haploidavey (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Simply add this new theory below the others which are exposed in the paragraph; at the end of paragraph "Health and physical appearance".

However, sincerely I don’t have any idea what do you mean for “let alone prognosis”, since I did not expose any prognosis, and the article that I have mentioned does not talk too. Therefore, this is an encyclopedia, which should aim to convey accumulated knowledge, so that it may be used as a work of reference. Considering these facts, I suppose that the article about Caesar’s ailment should report all hypotheses claimed by researches, advanced in course of years, or anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giulio 1987pascal (talkcontribs) 19:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

On the prognosis, you're right. You didn't mention it, and nor does your suggested source. Apologies. However, that does not detract from my argument against inclusion. Such theories emerge with some regularity from fields completely unrelated to the scholarly study of history. This article must be based on works by modern historians, published by reputable publishers and appraised by their peers. And it's not wikipedia's job to report all hypotheses and claims about anything and everything. A positive review of the paper and its theory by a reputable specialist in the field of Roman history (not medicine) might justify its use here. As far as I can tell, no such review exists. Sorry. Haploidavey (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course, if consensus among those who watch this page favours the inclusion of the source and content, that's fine. So far, I've been the only one to respond. Any takers? Haploidavey (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think your considerations are probably right. I just want to advance the idea that all founded and published hypotheses, based on symptoms, handed down by historical sources, should be considered at the same way; Obviously regarding their plausibility. I have found it plausible and then i have made a request, no more than that. I just hope that historians will consider it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giulio 1987pascal (talkcontribs) 21:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)