Talk:Bellum Siculum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sources[edit]

They need to be inline references, and they need to have descriptions on them, not just blank external links...--Ioshus (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though for a few short paragraphs of undisputed material giving the principal at the end of the article might be enough (provided they are only a very few, say 1 o2 article or chapter from a book). However the sources giving currently at the end of the article seems to just a bunch of websites mostly without particular reputation in addition some of them are dysfunctional now. Hence i removed them from the article and list them below just for reference. The content of the article itself seem ok.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added books covering the period of the Sicilian revolt and the article's content. However I noticed that none of them (nor any other literature I surveyed) seems to use the term "Sicilian revolt". Hence the article's name is likely to constitute a violation of WP:OR in the sense of establishing a new term not being used in scholarly literature so far. Therefore it might be advisable to move the article to a more appropriate title or merge the content into Sextus Pompey's biography.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 July 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to War between Sextus Pompey and the Second Triumvirate BusterD (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian revolt → Second Triumvirate's war in Sicily – The current title is inadequate not only because it's original research (cf. above) but also because the war wasn't a revolt. The Sicilian Vespers against the King of Sicily in 1282, which currently appears on the hatnote, is probably a better candidate of first thing that comes to mind when thinking of the current title. I can't seem to find any specific name attested by reliable sources, so I'm making do with this. Another possibility is war between Sextus Pompeius and the Second Triumvirate, which doesn't (in theory) restrict the subject to the island of Sicily alone, but that may be too long. Both alternatives are intended to be 'descriptive' titles that won't be written out in bold in the lede (MOS:FIRST). Avilich (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how either of these alternatives would be less "OR" than the present one—it's just a description, not original research, and thus not a valid reason to move the article (hence the capitalization; if it were intended to be a proper name, both words would be capitalized; if it's treated as a proper name by bolding in the lead—and that may not really tell us—it's easy just to remove the boldface). That said, it's pretty vague, so a better title might still be warranted. Of the two alternatives, the first one is quite specific, but I can't imagine anyone expecting to find this article under that title. The second alternative is quite wordy, though in running text it would be fine. Did Sextus Pompeius stage any other revolts? If this is the only (or primary) one, or it's the primary theatre of his war, why not "Revolt of Sextus Pompeius", without adding "in Sicily" (not because it's wrong, but for reasons of economy). Even if the war was broader, it might be desirable to consolidate any other articles that concern primarily Pompeius' actions. An alternative to this suggestion would be to add the years parenthetically: "Revolt of Sextus Pompeius (42–38 BC)" or "War in Sicily/Sicilian Revolt (42–38 BC)". P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's OR for the reason the commenter above me gave: no source uses that name, and just plain "Sicilian revolt" implies that's actually what the conflict is called, rather than simply a descriptive title. The proposed titles aren't OR because they reflect exactly what the sources describe. Sextus Pompeius held the island before the conflict started, so that wasn't even a revolt, technically. It's irrelevant that the proposed title is too specific and difficult to find, since people will find any of these titles through wikilinks, not by guessing and typing the correct name in the search box. Whether Sextus or the Triumvirate should be mentioned in the title I don't yet know. The triumvirs were the initial aggressors, to it's their war, but Sextus is probably the most important and notable person involved. Accordingly, Sextus Pompeius's war in Sicily might be preferable to Second Triumvirate's war. The location (Sicily) is no more uneconomical than timespan (42–38 BC). Admittedly, revolt of Sextus Pompeius is the most economical of all options, but again it's questionable that 'revolt' is even appropriate. Avilich (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To start, neither the current title nor the proposed title are used in the reviewed sources. Unfortunately, the sources do not provide a name for the event - but it is important to note that they consistently call it a war, and never a revolt or rebellion.
Despite this, I don't believe the proposed title is appropriate either, as it implies the war was limited to Sicily, but naval actions - which constituted the bulk of the war, as Sextus' forces could not compete on land - occurred far beyond what could be considered Sicilian waters. It also implies that the war can be solely attributed to the Second Triumvirate, but that isn't support by the sources; while the majority of the blame probably rests with them, it is too complicated, and the sources too few, to make an absolute judgement.
However, finding an alternative is difficult. Sources that heavily discuss the war, such as "Monstruosa Species: Scylla, Spartacus, Sextus Pompeius and Civil War in Sallust's Histories", do so without naming it. As such, I would propose we rename it to "Sicilian War". This title is used in a few locations, though none worthy of citation. The hatnote at "Sicilian Wars" would also seem to support this being named as such. BilledMammal (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Sicilian War" is imperfect, especially given that we already have Sicilian Wars. But I have to admit that K. Welch does use Bellum Siculum for events after Misenum. E. A. Freemen called it the "War between Caesar and Sextus Pompey" and I think something like that would be best. Furius (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a concise name, but I can see how that might lead to confusion; your descriptive name could work well, though I would change "Caesar" to "Octavian" for the sake of clarity. BilledMammal (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I'd be happy with that. Furius (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not too different from, and basically a worse version of, war between Sextus Pompeius and the Second Triumvirate, which I also suggested in the nomination. I ask that whoever closes move the page to that title, since it has what most closely resembles a consensus. It's a bit long, but more accurate than the 'Sextus Pompeius vs. Octavian' proposed above, and there's consensus that the current title is inadequate. Avilich (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article on the guy is titled Sextus Pompey, I don't think "Pompeius" in the title of this one would be right; "Second Triumvirate" rather than Caesar/Octavian is fine. Furius (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine too Avilich (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposal as an improvement. Srnec (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I think that we've reached a consensus on war between Sextus Pompey and the Second Triumvirate? Shall we close the RFC? Furius (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bellum_Siculum&oldid=1206234444"